Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolutely not. He is just a convenient donkey that happened to be the enemy of my enemy. The establishment DC.
But then once elected he did virtually everything the DC establishment wanted him to. He funneled money to the rich, cut services to the poor and middle class, appointed right wing corporatist (please note corporatist not social right wing) judges. The policies he enacted were no different that any swamp creature republican. He just did it while being more of an asshole and more blatantly corrupt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
So you're saying that child porn (a federal crime) is less important than Trump debatably inciting riots
If you would look at oromagi's response you would see that twitter suspended 1/4 of a million accounts for child porn. They also suspended trump for inciting riots and the overthrow of democracy. Both are serious issues.
Glad to know you'd rather believe that child pornography isn't as important as stopping an idiot from tweeting
child pornography is obviously a serious issue that needs to be dealt with. And twitter does take steps to do so. However attempting to overthrow democracy would have catastrophic effects on the entire country, potentially the entire world. Trump was trying to stop the legitimate president from being sworn in by any means necessary. If he had succeeded there is no telling how various parts of the government or the american people would react to a violent seizure of power by a sitting president.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The problem is that the modern Democrat party's only plans are:1)funnel as much money are possible to wealthy2) cut as much funding as possible that goes to poor or middle class people
what? it is the republicans that push for tax cuts on the wealthy (like trump). It is the republicans who constantly want to cut services for the poor or middle class. How could you possibly think those things apply to the democrats?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are you pretending that I care about establishment DC Republicans?
you care about trump don't you? He has been profiting off immigrant labor his entire life.
Cause living on a 0% wage when there is no job is so much better.
so in your world if the options are starve because companies won't pay a wage you can survive on, or stave because you can't find a job, we should do absolutely nothing? At a fundamental level, why should a job exist if someone can't survive while doing it? Why should we allow corporations to make billions while paying people a wage they can't live on?
How's that government charity working out for Venezuela?
That isn't even remotely similar. They heavily based their economy on oil. Also, america helped cripple their economy with sanctions. It is a ridiculous comparison to the american economy.
Although I feel like government charity is a misnomer since nobody volunteers to pay taxes
you're right. Which is why only right wing people would call it that. It is called a government service. Which is why governments exist, to provide services.
all people are not happy with how taxes spent on the poor help perpetuate the behavior and lifestyle choices of the poor that keep them perpetually unproductive and unemployable by removing the most driving Maslownian incentive to invest in yourself, namely, survival.
this is a fundamental misunderstanding. the right does love to brand anyone who can't succeed in a rigged system as a loser. And it must be their fault. It couldn't possibly be that the system is designed to keep them poor so extra money can be forced upward to the very richest.
America is one of those weird countries that provides free food to poor people and also free emergency care when they have a heart attack due to obesity. So compassionate.
free would imply you don't have to pay for it. America is one of those countries that provides emergency care when you have a heart attack, then bankrupts you for needing emergency care. It also ignores the fact that if that same person had gotten medical care years earlier, they could have avoided the heart attack. But due to a ridiculous health care policy that shits on the poor, they can't get basic healthcare until their condition becomes life threatening. At which point it is much more difficult (and expensive) to try to treat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
a new idea in decades.only decades?
my point exactly. They are a part of a bygone era when the sole point of a political party was to serve the wealthy. They don't have any new ideas because they succeeding in created a system that almost exclusively serves the rich. Why anyone who isn't a millionaire votes republican is more of a mystery.
While progressives haven't thought since 1848.
this doesn't even make sense. Progressives' platforms update all the time. For example there have been multiple plans on how to improve healthcare in america coming from the left. The right has absolutely no plans about this despite having over a decade to come up with them. Trump promised over and over and over that a healthcare plan would be announced within days. But nothing ever came, because the right has no ideas. Their only ideas are cutting taxes on the rich and gutting government services. If a problem can't be solved by doing those things (and almost no problems can be solved doing those things) then the right has absolutely no idea what to do.
Created:
Posted in:
The problem is that the modern Republican party's only plans are:
1)funnel as much money are possible to wealthy
2) cut as much funding as possible that goes to poor or middle class people
3) obstruct literally anything the democrats try to do unless it is points 1 or 2.
Things like the filibuster made sense when parties were objecting to things because they actually had a problem with the policy. The filibuster could be used to force debate and negotiation so that things could be passed. But that doesn't really happen any more. Republicans aren't really interested in debate or negotiation. Their goal is to block anything positive getting done so that they can campaign on how ineffective the democrats are.
Unfortunately, the filibuster's only purpose at this point is to stop the government from functioning. It doesn't serve any actual purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh, you mean protecting poor people by flooding the job market with 3rd world country labor for the American poor to compete with
that's been a republican policy for decades. Why are you pretending like it is solely a democratic one?
while also removing entry-level jobs with a federally mandated minimum wage?
no, mandating a minimum wage that people can actually live on so that corporations can't exploit people by making people work for a wage they can't live on anyway. Thus forcing the government to subsidize these company's pay rolls by providing services to keep their impoverished workers alive, food stamps etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Pie's argument is sufficient for me. You've [Buff] managed to bore me. You've plenty of straw collected. Make a man.Thank you, Pie.
lol imagine that, someone on the right likes it when someone echo's back their own thoughts to them. I'm shocked.... it's no wonder conservatives haven't had a new idea in decades.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It shows he’s a fuckin hypocrite who thinks he’s above his own rules
that photo is his swearing in as president. If there is a more important ceremonial moment, i'm not sure what it would be. If any exception were to be made, that would be it.
just like his goons in Democratic states who broke their own stay at home order.
I agree alot of people broke that order. But you seem to be throwing stones at democrats for breaking it but are perfectly fine with republicans who actively worked to kill people by not enacting the kinds of rules needed to keep covid in check.
Joe Biden is the problem when he broke his own rules
over 400,000 americans are dead from covid. That is the problem. Biden has had no way of fighting that until now. Trump could have. He chose not to. That is a much, much more serious problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
this feels eerily similar to Obama second term- more troops in the mid-east and the swamp is clearly seen
lol, seriously? Trump's presidency was wall to wall swamp. But now is the time when you can see the swamp? it wasn't when trump was shoveling money to the rich, slashing protections for poor people, pardoning his criminal cronies, etc? no, it is now that we see the swamp.... unbelievable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Is turn-about suddenly not fair play? Seems Trump endured five years of crap. Time for somebody else, and Hidin' Biden fits the gap, Jack.
Trump spent years abusing his power, lying to virtually everyone and causing massive damage the country. Did he deserve all the crap he got, no. But he deserves the vast majority of it.
Biden put in place an order designed to save lives and you are trying to paint that as a bad thing. It shows you don't actually care what biden does or how he does it. You are just looking for any thin excuse to criticize him. If you have a criticism of him that has some merit, great. He is certainly going to do stuff that is stupid or terrible. But to take shots at him for doing something trump should have done a long time ago makes you look like you just a hyper partisan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"When around others" is the CDC guideline for wearing masks, even outside, and according to his own EO. The above is Biden, around others, NOT wearing a mask. period. CDC be damned, he "says" by his actions, and in spite of his EO. This guy is a moral pervert.
jesus christ you are just out to damn him for anything and everything you can think of. He puts in place a policy to try to prevent the spread of a deadly pandemic and you are going to try spin that into an attack on him. I wasn't aware that trying to save the lives of the American people makes you a "moral pervert". Really shows the priorities of republicans that someone who refuses to take a global pandemic seriously can be some sort of a hero, but the guy who actually does try to take it seriously is the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
they want products that appear in their store to follow basic rules of conduct, yes.Contradict much?
no, my answer is the same each and every time. Parlor allows people to spread messages encouraging violence and treason. Because parlor was on the google and apple app store, this reflects on them. Since Parlor was not doing the basic level of moderation required by Google and Apple policy, they chose to terminate their business relationship.
It's Apple and they have no such policy. I know you think posting a link makes you look like you know what you're talking about, but I have already confirmed it.
Parlor has been kicked off google and apple. So we are talking about both. But you have provided no evidence whatsoever that apple is lying about having a policy for this. You just keep repeating it as if we should just take your word for it.
Discrimination can also be when other guilty parties are not punished.
that isn't discrimination. It would be very easy to not be punished for this, don't be guilty. Apple and Google don't always choose to punish people for breaking their rules, that is true. They don't want to ever have to kick people off their platform so they ignore as much as they can. But enforcing the rules people agreed to isn't discrimination. All parlor had to do was follow the rules they agreed to and they would be fine.
1) all standards are "made up". Where else would we get them?Standards should be applied in a non-discriminatory manner.
few standards are ever performed 100% the same way every time. People enforcing rules need some discretionary power. Maybe a warning will resolve the problem. Maybe a temporary suspension will. Very few rules are rigidly enforced the same every single time.
2) please show me where apple encouraged the murder of members of government.When you show me where Parler encouraged the murder of members of government. Remember now, not users of Parler, but Parker itself, since that is apparently your criteria.
you brought up apple doing the same thing, not me. Parlor allowed these calls for treason to spread. Apple can choose not to do business with them for this reason.
I can show you where Apple did not moderate the violence encouraged by gangster rap on their music site and trace it up the high murder rate in black neighborhoods in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Atlanta.
i don't really believe you, but it is irrelevant either way. If you or any other company/individual felt apple was responsible you would be free not to do business with apple over that. Apple feels parlor has broken their rules and helped encourage violence so they choose not to do business with them.
I don't need to. They said so themselves. They went even further and admitted that most of their staff are leftists.
please provide evidence for this claim.
At the rate Parler was growing, only an idiot would doubt it was a threat to Twitter.
why would anyone think they were? They were an echo chamber. That is fun for awhile, but boring. Besides, most of the people on parlor were probably still using twitter.
Oop! Your TDS is showing. But when we call the MSM a shitty little left wing echo chamber, the libtards get hysterical. Lol.
MSM is pretty corporatist. They aren't particularly left wing. I guess by comparison to the insanely right wing loons on Parlor maybe they are. But by that standard most people are left wing.
For three months American cities were burned and business looted by BLM/Antifa.
these are wildly different issues
1) BLM have a real cause. They really are targeting by police, discriminated against etc. the trumpists' only cause was trying to overtrurn the results of an election they don't like.
2) alot of the violence in the BLM riots was caused by police attacking peaceful protests. If peacefully protesting results in you getting attacked by police, yeah you are much more likely to respond with violence.
3) the trump cultists didn't show up to protest something. They went to try to force the government to do something incredibly illegal. Namely to throw out the results of an election. When the government didn't do that, they attacked. Many people interviewed openly said they were there for an armed revolution. Many said they were there to try to harm or kill members of the government if they could.
I am struggling to not call your hipocrisy for the stinking mess it is.
I'm stuggling to understand how anyone could conflate people protesting real injustice they suffer every day (BLM) with a bunch of traitors trying to overthrow democracy.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Former Capitol Police Chief: Officer who worked during Wednesday riot dies by suicide
why are you linking this story? What is your point?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is an important distinction between the two.But NOT a LEGAL DISTINCTION.
No one is being charged with a crime over this. So the "legal distinction" is irrelevant. The government isn't charging anyone with a crime over their speech. Companies are choosing not to do business with Parlor over their failure to moderate in their app.
Any speech that could be considered "illegal" is going to be "illegal" whether you say it to one person or one million.
we aren't discussing crimes. We are discussing the business relationship between companies. So "illegal" doesn't even enter into this.
Government officials want tech companies to put backdoors in encrypted communications apps — and may turn to Congress to make it happen
this seems to be unrelated to the current topic of parlor being removed from app stores.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Poor reading effort. Poor comprehensiomn effort. YOU brought up CDC, not me. I never mentioned the CDC as the guideline Biden broke. I'm speaking of his EO #1. I even cited it in my #4. I never cited the CDC. Some buff. Cream puff, maybe.
No, you seem to misunderstand me. Biden's order was to wear masks as relating to CDC guidelines. I showed you the exact text. I didn't bring up the CDC, Biden's order did. So you tell me which CDC recommendation he broke, or you are wrong and he didn't violate his Executive order.
Here is the text of the order again. Please note it says it requires compliance with CDC guidelines. Not that everyone must always wear a mask.
"The heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall immediately take action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to require compliance with CDC guidelines with respect to wearing masks, maintaining physical distance, and other public health measures by: on-duty or on-site Federal employees; on-site Federal contractors; and all persons in Federal buildings or on Federal lands."
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Horrible people use telephones to communicate horrible things.
Phones are, by nature, a 2 way communication. IE you are talking to only a private group of people. Things like parlor are, by nature, a public form of communication. You are spreading your message to a large, potentially unlimited, group of people.
There is an important distinction between the two. If people were privately messaging each other on parlor we wouldn't be having this discussion. The core of the issue is the loud, public messages encouraging violence and treason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I have. The Lincoln Memorial is a building and it is on Federal land.
ok. please show the specific CDC recommendation that he broke. Where he was is meaningless if the CDC does not specifically recommend wearing a mask outdoors and while socially distancing.
You keep saying he broke the CDC guideline. Show me the guideline he broke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm assuming this is the guideline you mean. It specifically says that they should follow CDC guidelines with respect to wearing masks and social distancing. Does the CDC recommend wearing a mask when outdoors and remaining socially distant? Unless you can prove that, then he hasn't broken this.
"The heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall immediately take action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to require compliance with CDC guidelines with respect to wearing masks, maintaining physical distance, and other public health measures by: on-duty or on-site Federal employees; on-site Federal contractors; and all persons in Federal buildings or on Federal lands."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
They have no such policy.
Google has alot of policies. Please read through all of them to confirm there is no such policy. https://play.google.com/intl/en-GB/about/developer-content-policy/
What they want is to decide Parler's moderation, on Parler's site.
No. They want to decide Parler's moderation on Google/apple's site. Parlor was available on their app stores. So Parlor's flagrant breach of basic rules reflects on them. When parlor failed to follow basic rules, they lost any right they had to be on the App Store.
And what if the policy of the store was that all apps on their platform must ban any users who marry inter-racially? Should that be ok?
of course not. it is illegal to discriminate based on race. But that is nothing like what happened.
Is Apple using the Constitution as the basis for banning Parler?
no. you raised the idea of discrimination on unconstitutional grounds, not apple.
The discrimination here is that only Parler is suffering the sanctions when multiple others are winked at.
so in your mind, discrimination is being punished for things you are guilty of? that strikes you as discrimination?
First, Apple carries users who spread messages encouraging violence. Have you ever listened to gangster rap on apple music? Their sanction of Parler is discriminatory.
there is a pretty major difference. No one can trace actual violence back to music on the apple store. We very much can trace violence back to the shit parlor is allowing. At least 5 people are dead, and parlor is very much involved in that.
Second, they are judging Parler on their own made up standard of "encouraging violence" that they don't apply to themselves or anyone else.
1) all standards are "made up". Where else would we get them?
2) please show me where apple encouraged the murder of members of government.
Third, Parler is clearly a threat to Twitter, and both Google and Twitter CEO's have similar leftist political beliefs.
you haven't established that Google or Twitter's CEO's have leftist beliefs. And Parler isn't really a threat other companies. They are a shitty little right wing echo chamber. The problem is that the echo chamber started amplifying calls to violence and parler was letting it happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You are telling me that twitter refused to ban child porn yet decided to ban Trump over this?
you are comparing apples to oranges. Child pornography is not political in any way. So saying Twitter didn't do anything in that incident but did do something in this incident is not really a comparable situation. And certainly doesn't show any kind of political leaning.
Twitter is a left leaning media outlet where the left takes a strong place and is promoted, while conservative views are limited and suppressed, as Trumps banning is evidence of.
This is a common refrain on the right, but is largely just bullshit. Basically, twitter doesn't like to punish people unless it feels it absolutely has to. Their business is to allow people to say and do as much as possible. They only resort to bans and things when they have absolutely no choice. Trump went WAY, WAY, over the line. He has for years. If he hadn't been president Twitter probably would have banned him years ago for the shit he put on there. He got a pass because he was president.
However, Twitter blatantly lies about being neutral, thus promoting false advertising.
you haven't provided any evidence that they aren't neutral. your only examples are a completely non political case where they didn't do anything, and a case of someone blatantly breaking twitter's rules for years and years and eventually being punished for it when he triggered a violent insurrection against the government.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
NO to, PARLER SHOULD BE BANNED.
why? the platform is blatantly breaching the rules they agreed to with google, apple etc by allowing violent extremists to spread calls to violence. If that isn't grounds to remove an app from the app store, then what would be?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
So Google wants to decide moderation on Parler.
they want products that appear in their store to follow basic rules of conduct, yes. Just like any other business would. If parlor doesn't want to follow those basic rules, they can't be on the app store.
Parlor chose to break those rules.Parler didn't. Users on Parler did, ON PARLER'S PLATFORM, not Google's.
no. Google's rules say parlor must moderate the content on their platform. Parlor chose not to do that. Therefore it is parlor that broke the rules.
nope. Trump made tons of allegations, had tons of cases go before the courts. They then each got tossed out one by one because there was no evidence the allegations were true.Not a single court convicted Trump of "spending months convincing people of delusional conspiracies." Trying to conflate your spin with the courts verdict is dishonest.
not a single court was investigating trump. They were investigating claims of fraud. And in every single case they found no evidence of fraud. Therefore all of trump's claims were tested in court and found to be incorrect.
2 years of a special prosecuter's investigation found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. You seem to cherry-pick which authority's findings you accept.
this is a common lie people on the right tell. Trump's team gave polling data to the russians. The investigation did not find that there was no collusion. It didn't even say that trump didn't commit any crimes. The report was clear that they could not make that determination because they felt they could not legally charge Trump and it would therefore be unreasonable to accuse him of crimes when he can't defend himself in court.
What president elect of America doesn't communicate with Russia?
umm, most of them? What president elect does communicate with Russia?
I can't tell if you're that ignorant or if you're just a liar. Every incoming American president talks to the leaders of the other superpowers.
please provide a source for that.
My point is that both Google and Twitter are being hypocritical and discriminatory.
they are removing an app that has very seriously breached their terms of service. If that is discrimination in your mind, then there is no way to reason with you. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do when someone breaches a contract.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Can you list that policy?
I can refer you back to the statement from google and apple. Are you doubting that they have a policy that requires app's on their store to have moderation?
And what if the policy of the store was that all apps on their platform must ban any users who marry inter-racially? Should that be ok?
no. that would be unconstitutional you cannot legally discriminate on grounds of race. But we aren't talking about race, or even discrimination. Parlor allowed users to spread messages encouraging violence. They did not take sufficient steps to prevent these messages from being spread so they were taken off the app store. There is no discrimination here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
invisible election fraud.Hint: it's election fraud when a governor and a sec of state change election laws instead ofd state legislatures. I know the law means little to you, but some of us depend on it to maintain civilization.
so when someone changes the rules months before an election and then no one objects to it, that is fraud in your world? If people disagreed with the changes they had lots of time to object and sue to stop it. They didn't. It can't be fraud if everyone knew exactly what was happening and was ok with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
talk, talk.... show me the words Trump said.
we've been through this. months of lies about election fraud. Telling them they needed to come to DC on that particular day. telling them they needed to march on the capitol to personally do something and that their country would be gone if they didn't. People like Giuliani telling them they needed trial by combat, etc.
a publicity stunt.that's what we watched today
what? you mean the swearing in of America's lawfully elected president? That's not a publicity stunt. It is ceremonial I suppose.
Did I expect it to make sense to you? No, I did not.
I high percentage of things you say are nonsense or just delusional, so that tracks with your record.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And the BLM people attacking the DC police were not? Okay. Just have to wear the right clothes I guess.
no. the BLM protesters were very different.
1) they had a real cause. They really do get discriminated against all the time. Trump's cultists are just pissed off the their cult leader lost an election and can't handle reality.
2) they got attacked by the police while they were protesting. I won't claim all those protesters were peaceful. But alot of them were. The police attacked them anyway. No cop attacked trump's cultists as they marched on the capitol. Hell, most of the cops didn't do anything about it as traitors pushed their way inside to try to murder members of the government.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
A bullet in the neck. She wouldn't have been shot if she was wearing black and had the proper skin color.
I'm assuming you are referring to the woman who was shot storming the capitol? She was engaged in sedition. Arguably treason. They were violently attack the US capitol while they tried to certify the election results.
It is a tragedy that anyone had to die for this. But they were attacking democracy. She has only herself and the liars who riled up that mob to blame.
I wonder when it was the last time people were called "brainwashed" when they asked authority for representation?
we literally just had an election. The people voted for their representatives in November. So why were they murdering people to get what they already have?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
There were walls to keep Americans away from the traditional Inauguration parade.
because the previous president riled up his cultists so much that there was a legitimate threat that some of them might try to murder their president.
Biden issues an EO to stop building the border wall to allow free passage of caravan aliens into the country.
this is just sad. The vast majority of illegal aliens cross the border at ports of entry. A wall doesn't address the majority of the issue. If the point is to stop illegal immigrants a wall is not an effective solution. The wall is, and always was, a publicity stunt.
This is supposed to be unity. Unity of whom? This is the United States of America, not the United States of the World.
this doesn't even make sense.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The government victimized them.
by having an election? how exactly did that victimize them?
And they didn't attack democracy, they attacked the government.
they attacked the capitol on the day the results of a free democratic election were being counted with the express intent of preventing that from happening. Their goal was to prevent the result of a democratic election. That is attacking democracy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are BLM rioters also brainwashed into cult violence?
BLM protesters are people who have been actually victimized. They get stopped by police for no reason, they get insulted, attacked etc. Trump's cultists aren't victims of anything here. Nothing happened to them that made them violent traitors. They chose to be because their cult leader lied to them and convinced them they needed to literally attack democracy in order to protect their cult leader.
The 2 groups are very, very different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You claim things that are not true all the time. What else should one think?
nope, I stick to reality. not nonsense about invisible election fraud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Trump didn't lose Georgia and Pennsylvania because he is wildly popular.poor choice of words. You do see, don't you, that one can read your commentary as admitting Trump is wildly popular, and that he didn't lose.
my apologies, you are correct. I didn't take into account the insanity of the potential audience. Biden obviously won those states and that has been confirmed over and over. So it didn't occur to me at the time of writing that people could think i meant something that very clearly isn't true.
How many people did Biden attract at his handful of campaign rallies compared to Trump rallies?
who cares? How is that even relevant? The fact that trump can turn out thousands of cultists to his rallies does not necessarily translate into widespread support. It means he has a core group of fanatics who will literally risk death from a pandemic in order to listen to his insane ramblings.
Like it or not, GA and PA did change their election laws, but not by their respective legislatures. That's not lawful according to their own election legislations.
If that were true (and anyone actually objected to the changes) that would have been tested in court prior to the election. I don't have access to the source so take this with a grain of salt since I cannot back it up at the moment. But I recall seeing a story about republicans suing about that, but only after the election. And they were quoted as saying they didn't object before the election because they didn't know if the changes would benefit them or not.
So essentially, the republicans didn't object to these changes until it became clear they lost, then they started whining about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If Trump is as bad as they say, isn't it strange they are afraid of him running and winning again? If Trump runs again and wins, who do they think would have elected him? Bolivians?
I think the republicans are afraid of all the damage trump will do if he can run again.
1) the republicans will be paralyzed. Trump will play his favorite game of keeping people guessing about whether he will run or not right up to the last minute. This will keep any other potential candidate in limbo and pretty much screwed since it takes years to build up a campaign. So the republicans would like to prevent him from running again if they can.
2) The republicans are afraid of the damage trump will do to them if he hangs around as a prospective nominee for 4 years. Trump is toxic for a large chunk of the population and a large chunk of political donors. If trump is saying he will run, the republicans will be in trouble for the next 4 years. Trump didn't lose Georgia and Pennsylvania because he is wildly popular. He will weigh down the republican party for as long as there is the risk he is coming back.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
..b.parlor's platform is on Apple's platform.In Apple's case, but this is not true for Google or Twitter.
It was on apple's platform. they have now been removed from it. That is what we are talking about. Parlor was never on twitter as far as I know, so I don't understand why you are mentioning that.
Tell us what rule of the Google play store was broken by Parler? The Parker app was on offer at the Google play store. They violated no google rules.
both apple and google answered that. Parlor violated their rules about content moderation.
Here is Google's statement:
"In order to protect user safety on Google Play, our longstanding policies require that apps displaying user-generated content have moderation policies and enforcement that removes egregious content like posts that incite violence," "We're aware of continued posting in the Parler app that seeks to incite ongoing violence in the US. We recognize that there can be reasonable debate about content policies and that it can be difficult for apps to immediately remove all violative content, but for us to distribute an app through Google Play, we do require that apps implement robust moderation for egregious content,"
The Twitter accounts of Parler, and of it's CEC were banned, though those accounts violated I Twitter rules. Even Twitter did not vote any rule violations when announcing the ban. They cited actions ON PARLER as the reasons for their ban.
I did a quick look and couldn't find anything about parler being banned from twitter. Could you provide a source please?
They are wrong to "crack down" and try to force other platforms to observe their rules.
why? Google and apple have rules about what other businesses have to do in order to be in their app store. Parlor chose to break those rules. You are arguing that parlor should be allowed to flagrantly breach their contractual obligations.
Not to mention, trump took an oath to uphold the constitution (which he very much broke). Comedians do not.Again, this is your TDS talking, not fact.
The man incited an attack democracy to try to prevent the rightful president from being sworn in. That is definitely a violation of his oath.
Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies.This is your opinion, not fact.
nope. Trump made tons of allegations, had tons of cases go before the courts. They then each got tossed out one by one because there was no evidence the allegations were true.
The charge was collusion, not communication.
the trump campaign gave voter information to a russian agent, it definitely went further than "communication". Also, it was trump that made it about "collusion". IE he kept tweeting he didn't collude with them while he was being investigated. Collusion isn't in any criminal code. It is a buzz word he used.
What president elect of America doesn't communicate with Russia?
most of them. Why would a president elect have communication with russians? But on top of that, Trump and multiple members of his administration swore they didn't communicate with any russians. They lied. Trump's team communicated with russians or their agents dozens of times (including in Trump tower) when they said it was zero.
It most certainly is a crime for a president to organize an armed attack on democracy and the US government.Yes. You only fault is that President Trump didn't do that.
your delusions are pretty strong. Even republicans admit that trump incited that attack. But trump cultists will fight to the death to defend the dear leader.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
It looks like what you have: "Social media" banning members whose opinions do not match the party line. More than Trump are being banned. Hundreds have been and are being banned. I'm no longer on Twitter, either, so I know what shytestorm you've got.
I don't use Twitter. So my expertise is quite limited. But from my understanding, people don't get banned for their opinions not matching party line. They get banned for things like spreading obvious lies. I can see why that would be a blurred line though since the republican party line is lies (about voter fraud, etc).
"evil cabal of pedophilesThat's your concern? Sure, pedo is bad, but that's not the spear you fear.
It's a reference to the Qanan lunatics. They believe there is a cabal of pedophiles secretly running the world, or some such nonsense.
It's free market capitalism you fear
I don't fear free market capitalism. for the most part, it is a great system. However, in specific areas it is a train wreck. The market is good at responding to lots of consumer needs. It drives growth and innovation. But when there is some kind of urgent need, it really, really sucks. The free market isn't looking at what is best for the country or the people, they are looking at what is best for their shareholders. So when you have something that actually needs leadership, the free market fails us.
Free medical care is a better message?Free education is a better message?
yes.
Free salary just for being alive, but not willing to work is a better message?
I'm assuming you mean UBI. That's not a policy that I personally ascribe to, but it could be worth looking into.
A one-way conversation is a better message?
no. when have I ever said it should be a one-way conversation?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm pretty certain it's NEVER A CRIME to publicly discuss a THEORY, no matter how "insane" it seems.
not entirely true. if you are theorizing about overthrowing the government, that could still cross the line into criminal. But for the most part you would be right. But no one is talking about criminal behavior in this thread. We are talking about parlor being banned which isn't about crimes being committed. It is about parlor breaking the terms of service and the free market.
Each individual criminal is responsible for their own actions.
again, you are confusing crimes with a business decision. Parlor didn't get removed from the app store because they committed a crime. They got removed because their existence on the google/apple play store was bad for google/apple's business.
A THEORY cannot be dragged into a court of law.
no one is talking about a court of law. Why do you think this has something to do with the courts?
They can choose, for any reason not protected by the constitution, to stop doing business with them at any time.Yes. Nobody is disagreeing with you on this particular point.
so you now agree with the topic? That is is totally fine for google/apple etc to stop doing business with parlor? that seems to be the exact opposite of what you are attempting to argue.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
But, none of you will articulate why you feel the need to not just censure, but to completely ban?
Because censure doesn't work. What would that even look like? Twitter tried flagging Trump's lies as "disputed". It accomplished nothing. People continued to believe them.
Are you afraid that conservative influencers have a message you cannot combat directly but by censure?
How do you compete with an "evil cabal of pedophiles who secretly control the world"? there is no logic in this. There is no rational argument about why they are right. There is bat shit crazy nonsense that vulnerable, confused people buy into. It is dangerous.
Abandon censure with a better argument. That's what rational, civilized people do
better arguments were and continue to be made. But people don't listen. It's much easier to just buy into a conspiracy theory that explains everything than to try to understand a complicated and messy world. So when the right gives insane but simple explanations, people buy it. IE, it isn't that there are complex problems, it is that a cabal of pedophiles are doing it. It isn't that Trump lost an election because he had terrible policies and failed as a president, no it was a cabal of corporations and dead communists that stole it.
a "better" argument is not what these people are looking for. they are looking for a simpler one that protects their world view from being challenged.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
At what point does a "conspiracy theory" become a crime?
well, presumably when it causes people to commit a crime (like attacking the capitol). But we aren't talking about criminal behavior in this thread. We are talking about one company having the freedom to do business, or not, with another company. There doesn't need to be a single crime involved for google to decide they don't want to do business with parlor. They can choose, for any reason not protected by the constitution, to stop doing business with them at any time.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's called "anti-discrimination laws". nOT "CENTRAL PLANNING".
That is exactly what you are advocating. You want the government to be able to order a company to do business with another company. To be very clear, no one is being discriminated against. No one is saying you can't have right wing political ideas. They are saying you can't advocate crimes and conspiracy theories on someone else's platform. That isn't discrimination.
A business that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC is not supposed to be able to discriminate against people just because they hold beliefs that you disagree with.
no one is being discriminated against for their beliefs. A software is being removed from a platform because they are breaking the terms and conditions they agreed to when they got on that platform.
A business can make "rules" of course. But those rules must be uniformly enforced, quantifiable, and PROCRUSTEAN.
no, they really don't. A private business can set whatever rules they want (within what is permissible by law). And they can enforce them, or not, as they see fit. If you don't like the way they enforce their rules, use another business. That is the free market.
If parlor wants to allow people to spread disproven conspiracy theories and advocate for treason, then they can do that. But if they choose to do that, other companies don't have to do business with them.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can never make delusional people accept reality.
For a person who has full fledged rejected reality, there is not much, if anything we can do for them. A large chunk of trump cultists simply choose to substitute reality for whatever he says. Even if they can see that he is lying, they choose to believe it anyway. For those kinds of people, we are better off if they are using some app on the fringe of the internet. They will still be crazy, but their insanity will have more trouble leaking into the wider population.
They are taking the action that is best for their business.Discrimination based on religious viewpoints is functionally indistinguishable from discrimination based on political viewpoints.
They aren't particularly similar.
But you completely skipped my question. Why should one company be forced to do business with another company if they don't want to? Especially when doing business with them could cause serious damage to them?
You are now talking about the government ordering companies to do business. That is called central planning of an economy. It is the exact opposite of a free market economy.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
PARLER is NOT legally "responsible" for USER GENERATED CONTENT.
no one here ever mentioned being legally responsible. I have never claimed they are. However if Parlor chooses to do business in a way that Google, Apple etc. do not like, they are fully within their rights to stop doing business with Parlor. That is a free market.
Talking about it and believing it are NOT "still a crime".
This part of the conversation is a bit off track since we are talking about private businesses and their choices.
Well, you'll be happy to know they're all moving to GAB now. [**]
well, the further they can be driven out of sane society the better. You can never make delusional people accept reality. But if they choose to be quarantined in a part of the internet where normal people are unlikely to go by accident, at least it reduces the spread of their insane conspiracies.
Can PARLER be legally banned by "big tech"? - - the answer seems to be "YES".
the answer is indisputably yes. A free market system means they don't have to do business with parlor if they don't want to.
Should PARLER be banned by "big tech"? My guess is that you're going to lean towards "YES". I, on the other hand, lean towards "NO".
why? These companies are businesses. Their purpose is to make profit. Having Nazis and terrorists plotting death and destruction on their platform is bad for business. They are taking the action that is best for their business. Isn't that what the right has been arguing should happen?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's the beauty of it. A "sincerely held belief" doesn't need to be "true".
it still needs to be legal. IE you can have a sincerely held belief that you need to eat people, it's still a crime. You can sincerely believe you have the right to say whatever you want without consequences. But the law says otherwise.
You have freedom to say whatever you want (within legal limits). And the government cannot punish you for it. But others have the legal right to punish you for it if they want to. It doesn't matter what you believe, that is how a free society works.
The LEGAL DOMAIN of free speech only applies to the government punishing you. THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREE-SPEECH APPLIES TO EVERYONE EVERYWHERE.LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, DON'T BURN OR BAN BOOKS.
Books get banned by private groups all the time. School boards for example ban books that children shouldn't be reading. So your philosophy can be whatever you want, but groups have the right to ban books if they feel like it.
Any company can change or re-interpret their "terms of service" at any time.true. how is that relevant though?This invalidates the very core concept of a CONTRACT.
not at all. Lots of contracts get violated. That usually doesn't require one side to punish the other. They have the option to enforce the contract, but they usually don't have to.
For example, a building company builds something wrong. Contractually you can sue them for it. But they volunteer to fix the issue for free. The company contracting them has the choice of whether to sue or not.
You seem to be very enthusiastically in favor of the (wholesale) ban.
of course. Parlor is responsible for spreading lies and fomenting criminal activity.
Also, PARLER didn't "choose to allow this to happen, which is a breach of the terms and conditions they have with google, apple etc".
Yes, yes they did. They could have taken strong action to prevent this stuff from spreading. they didn't.
PARLER'S official response to AMAZON was that they had a backlog of flagged posts and they were adding more moderators to address this backlog.
ok. so you are acknowledging they broke the terms of service but that they made claims that at some point they might stop breaking them. So what? If a drunk driver runs over children then says he might take action to stop drinking and running over children in the future, do we just let him go about it?
Parlor has been letting this shit run rampant for months. Them saying that they might do something about it in the future:
1) there's no guarantee they would actually do that
2) they've already been breaking the rules for months and spreading sedition and lies.
So why should google, apple or anyone else give a shit what parlor says they might do in the future?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Parler is being de-platformed (refused service) specifically because of their "sincerely held belief" (CREED) that free-speech should be sacrosanct (a.k.a. "moderation philosophy").
That is an idiotic belief that has literally never been true. Free speech is not sacrosanct. It never has been and never will be. You can be punished for your speech at literally any time. And this belief stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of free speech. So I will explain.
The concept of free speech only applies to the government punishing you. IE you can't be arrested for using your free speech. But any business, any individual can choose to punish you for the things you say whenever they want. For example if you say something racist to your boss, they can fire you. If you say something offensive in a business, they can toss your ass out and ban you from their store. You are literally never free from consequences of the things you say.
You are free to say things if you want. But other people can choose not to associate with you or do business with you as a result of it. Free speech just means the government can't arrest you for it. So you see? It has no bearing on this conversation since the government isn't even involved.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
People have said the same kinds of things on twitter and facebook and youtube. [**]
we are talking about the google play store, not facebook. Facebook didn't ban parlor.
Violating "terms of service" means practically nothing.
very much not true. It's basically breaking a contract. Companies regularly choose not to enforce punishment on that breach of contract, but that doesn't mean breaking it means nothing. These companies don't want to have to ban anyone. they really really don't. These companies make their money by having as many people as possible on their platform. That is why the look the other way as much as they can. The trump cultists and Qanon lunatics have just gone so far off the deep end that these companies have been forced to do something.
Any company can change or re-interpret their "terms of service" at any time.
true. how is that relevant though?
NOT EVERYONE USING PARLER IS EVIL.
no one has ever said that they are. Please stop with the straw man arguments. but alot of people on Parlor are calling for murders, treason, sedition etc. Parlor chooses to allow this to happen, which is a breach of the terms and conditions they have with google, apple etc.
YOUR LOGICAL FALLACY IS "THE BROAD BRUSH".
nope. I have made no argument at all about all the people using parlor. I will break down my points and you tell me which, if any, you disagree with.
1) People on parlor are calling for murder and treason.
2) Parlor allows this to happen on their platform.
3) Google, apple etc choose not to do business with a company that promotes treason as it is bad for their business. And because we live in a free market economy, they are free to do business with, or not, any company they want.
Is there anything in there you disagree with?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine if you will, thousands of people silently and peacefully standing outside the white house, each one holding a severed obama head in the air.Is this free-speech?
isolated from all other context, then yes. But I can't imagine such a thing is likely without the context being more incriminating. The context is extremely important. And the context in this case is lots of people calling for murder, sedition and treason on parler. That very clearly breaches the terms of service of these tech companies.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
id have to see the law written out to see if i agreed that he broke it. i always considered things like treason and sedition to be vague and i suppose i thought they were violated when other crimes were committed
Laws for sedition and treason in the US don't get used very much. the standard of evidence is usually pretty high. so whether trump could be found guilty of it in a court of law is less than certain. But it is absolutely a crime. So if you think trump rebelled against the US government, then also committed crimes. IE sedition, treason etc.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the reason you can impeach someone is for high crimes and misdemeanors. i'm aware that some people say you can impeach for non crimes, but i dont buy that argument.
the term "high crimes" is a reference to the office. IE he holds a high office, so any abuse of his power is a "high crime". There is nothing in the constitution that implies the president must commit a criminal offense in order to be impeached.
it's possible to rebel against the country without committing crimes, and that's what id say trump has done.
no it isn't. sedition is a crime. If he has rebelled against the country, then he has absolutely committed a crime.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What’s the difference between GDP per capita and income per capita?
GDP and income are not the same thing. One is the value of all products created. The other is the amount of money people made. Those are not the same thing.
The solution is to encourage poor people to pay for their own healthcare.
wow that is a super weak argument. So the solution for people going bankrupt because they can't afford the insanely over priced healhcare, is to force people to pay for their own healthcare.... Do you not see the stupidity of that answer? The reason they went bankrupt is because they paid for their own healthcare. And it bankrupted them.
If your fine with your tax dollars going to help the poor, remove the government middleman and adopt a homeless person. At least it’s cheaper that way. If your unwilling to do that, don’t force the taxpayer to pay for the homeless persons free stuff since your not willing to.
this answer doesn't really make sense. It, in no way, solves the problem. You are arguing exactly what the rich want. They want to be able to make huge sums of money and offload the associated costs to someone else. Which is exactly what you are proposing.
These people aren’t conservative, but probably statist. They want the government involved with giving poor people and fetuses free stuff.
lol, why do you believe that you get to define what a conservative is?
Do you think all conservatives love war? that's messed up.A majority of conservatives support war otherwise they wouldn’t feel the need to give the military more money.
This seems wildly inaccurate. I'm pretty sure most conservatives done "love war".
I meant if someone was super pro gun, they probably wouldn’t be liberal.
why? there is absolutely no conflict between wanting guns and liking universal healthcare. Those 2 things aren't related at all.
If conservatives were racist, they would support gun control which harms blacks people more.
no, they like having lots of guns because they believe they will need to use them on black people.
Then why does Trump want the wall? He’s right wing and he supports stricter immigration requirements.
the wall is a complete joke. The vast majority of illegal immigrants in america come through a port of entry. IE a border crossing, an airport etc. A wall has absolutely no effect on them. He is building a wall (which isn't an effective solution anyway) to stop a tiny fraction of illegal immigrants. But with tunnels, ladders etc, it won't stop many people. It's all a show. Trump doesn't give a shit about illegal immigrants. He has employed lots of them at his businesses. He pretends to care to appeal to stupid/racist/xenophobic people.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I'm not sure your argument makes sense. You believe that a president has violated the constitution and should therefore be barred from running for office again. but that he shouldn't be impeached? Impeachment is the intended punishment for abuse of office. Barring them from running again would be an even stronger punishment. How can you justify barring someone from running again in the future, but that they shouldn't be impeached?
Created: