US Politics The 2020 Trump Presidency Thread
- Thread starter JessFR
- Start date
- Status
TheInvisibleStoner
Ex-Bluelighter
LOL
Trump supporters are graveling the desperation is so big now.
He lost. He lost again and again and again. Then he lost his shit and started to have a breakdown.
Now Trump just getting owned because he is done. He is worthless on any platform now. Why? He is no longer the President!!!
The nerve of his supporters yesterday. They made history. And accomplished nothing aside getting people hurt. Its over. 12 days
Bye bye Trump!!!
Trump supporters are graveling the desperation is so big now.
He lost. He lost again and again and again. Then he lost his shit and started to have a breakdown.
Now Trump just getting owned because he is done. He is worthless on any platform now. Why? He is no longer the President!!!
The nerve of his supporters yesterday. They made history. And accomplished nothing aside getting people hurt. Its over. 12 days
Bye bye Trump!!!
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
NO! :D
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Ahem.
Of course the baker shouldn't be required to make a cake for a gay wedding! It's a private business he has every right to deny service to anyone for any reason!
Oh wait wrong thread.
THEY HAVE NO RIGHT SILENCING TRUMP THOSE FUCKING LIBTARDS AT TWITTER!
Deleted member 521610
Bluelighter
we are not china we were censor the internet and political opponents unless we all suddenly want the Chinese to come over and silence the spread of information of speech even if does not align with our views. It just creates further divide and inflames tensions more among his supporters who will use this as further evidence for their beliefs. Twitter trying to stop inciting violence is inciting even more violence among his base but this is what those libtard bigtech companies want actually. Google already censors everything and now all other companies are.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
This is always the standard response, that every action actually supposedly does the opposite. (and thus naturally we should take absolutely no action whatsoever)
I'm just gonna say it again. It has historically been endorsed by the right, mostly correctly in my view, that private companies have a right to refuse service to people for any reason.
But soon as it's companies doing it against conservatives it exposes many of those right wing voices for the hypocrites that they are.
Personally I wish they'd banned trump ages ago.
nail. head.
a recent online exchange i had suggests to me that, for some, evidence is pretty much irrelevant to their beliefs
alasdair
Deleted member 521610
Bluelighter
Im about a complete free spread of information internet where big tech monopolies do not control the flow of information to suit their social engineering. When it comes down to a media platform different rules apply to that company. If anybody supports censoring political information and silencing voices of those on the other side of political spectrum to themselves then want to talk about hypocrisy on other topics is just funny. And further cements that these commies want to take over everything.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Well uhh.. Too bad?
Cause I ain't paying my server bills for you to spew bullshit with it. :D
Go get your own server, host your own platform, that's internet freedom and thats capitalism.
We already know what happens when dark skinned people riot, they are treated with kid gloves. They were allowed to possess a police precinct just this past summer. But can you imagine what would have happened had it been dark skinned people shot by police?
So are you against anti-monopoly laws?
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
No not at all, but I don't see how anti monopoly laws have anything to do with obligating twitter to serve everyone. Just because they have to provide a voice to everyone doesn't get rid of their monopoly.
That's kinda what I was trying to say. I'd rather people stopped insisting on using Twitter and started competing services. Break their monopoly.
Well, the legal argument against tech censorship as far as I understand it concerns the fact that tech companies are so big and powerful and so much public discourse is carried out over them, that they are essentially "the public square" and obviously whoever has control over the public square has the ability to control what people see and read, what information is available to them and how it is presented.
I agree that on my own platform, I should be able to censor anyone for any reason but if I have a monopoly on information technology and I control the public square, than not only do I stand in the way of the free exchange of ideas and even the freedom of speech, I also possess unfathomable amounts of power.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Except there's major problems with that argument and I'm not aware of it having any legal merit.
Here's the problem. That public square is public property, is supported by mandatory taxation, and with that you have rights, like free speech, to use it hold protests, you have a right to make use of it, and you have a right to petition your representatives to make changes to it.
Nome of that is true of Twitter, it is a for profit commercial operation and has wide latitude to enforce service agreements.
Private companies should not be defacto public spaces to begin with. Especially when they operate in multiple countries.
The proper public version of Twitter would be either a Twitter run by the government itself, or a version of Twitter that operates via some kind of truly open system that isn't centrally controlled at all.
But just making Twitter a defacto public space seems like a terrible idea, for private operations AND the public interest.
Burnt Offerings
Bluelight Crew
Bernie Sanders was a very popular candidate among millennials (myself included at one point, although in retrospect there were also definitely disappointments re: Sanders) & genZ, and he is right out of that center-left political tradition
FDR had many flaws...one of the worst was, as previously mentioned, Japanese internment, which IMO was a stain on this country's history. It's debatable how much his economic policies helped in the 1930s. But what I liked about that era was that much of the leadership was composed of ordinary, relatable folks...Robert Jackson was appointed Attorney General without a law degree...Marriner Eccles (chairman of the Federal Reserve) was a small-town banker from Utah...Harry Hopkins (Roosevelt's closest adviser on Depression relief) was a social worker from Iowa...Henry Wallace (Secretary of Agriculture) came to the government from running a magazine for farmers in Iowa...etc. Whereas today we have many well-paid "experts" with post-graduate degrees from Columbia or Harvard or wherever who none-the-less are completely terrible at their jobs & suck at making meaningful, material improvements in the lives of ordinary working people. This was true, at least, during the Obama era, and I'm sure it'll be par for the course during Biden's term too. You don't need to be a genius to make a positive difference in the lives of people who may need some help, when you're a civil servant...you do need courage, though
I like how the state during the FDR era was willing to give many working class people help during a time of desperate need, without demeaning or patronizing them, as I see the modern Democrats and Republicans do all the time
This is kind of an off-topic tangent I suppose but just thought I'd elaborate a bit on that subject since several people commented on that part of my post
I agree, I also think making private tech companies the public square is a bad idea and it's an unfortunate turn of events that they have become so influential. However, I don't see the government making its own version of twitter because the tech companies have a great deal of sway and influence over the government itself. Politicians who are favored by the tech companies are not going to release a competitor and if certain politicians favored such an idea they would simply be censored by the tech companies.
So, that leaves me with the question of do you believe it would be beneficial to have free and open exchange of ideas and if so how could we make that available to the public in this technological age?
kid gloves is a mob of seditionists being allowed to enter the capitol, break and steal things, and walk out. it should not have happened.
in short, you don't have a problem with your censoring people, you only have a problem with others censoring people.
these companies don't have a monopoly on technology. people got bent out of shape about facebook and parler was born. republicans and right-leaners (and i am not assuming you are either - i obviously do not know) talk all the time about the importance of a free market and the curse of regulation. until it's something they don't like then they're all about big government and regulating it...
that is a great question. i think the answer starts with net neutrality.
alasdair
Obviously it was allowed to happen because U.S. capital is armed to the teeth and had plenty of warning this rally was occurring. Do you realize how much images of Trump supporters inside the capital building are worth to the media and Trump's enemies? This will now be used to justify more censorship and guilt by association of anyone who is in any way connected to Trump.
Meanwhile, BLM was allowed to destroy entire city blocks of private businesses (as opposed to the Capital building, a den of thieves paid for by taxpayer money), injure and kill people, assault police, break curfews, set St. John's church on fire, openly call for political violence and do billions of dollars worth of damage over a period of months and got defended the media. Chris Cuomo said "who says protests have to be peaceful?", the mayor of Seattle called it a "summer of love". Same thing when Kavanaugh protesters enters the senate. But when it is a few Trump supporters in isolated incident that lasted about two hours they are terrorists and insurrectionists.
How can there be anything but division when the media reports this way?
Don't we all feel that way? But jokes aside, I mean I support the right of people to control their own platforms or form their own online communities where certain things aren't allowed but I think there is also a need for neutral platforms, or else the free exchange of ideas is impaired.
I think you could argue they do have a monopoly on information technology, google basically owns the internet. What do you consider a monopoly?
I agree there is a contradiction in republicans who preach about the virtues of the free market but then want to regulate it as soon as something they don't like it comes up.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I believe in free speech but honestly I think we already have that on the internet for all practical purposes.
We are using it right now, ranting about the government, or defending it, arguing politics.
Just because you can't argue one specific thing in one specific place at one specific time doesn't mean you don't broadly have the ability already.
The capacity is there. You just gotta use it and realize you aren't guaranteed an audience. You have to find ways to build one.
We are using it right now, ranting about the government, or defending it, arguing politics.
Just because you can't argue one specific thing in one specific place at one specific time doesn't mean you don't broadly have the ability already.
The capacity is there. You just gotta use it and realize you aren't guaranteed an audience. You have to find ways to build one.
- Status