Political Debate Thread

I've heard conversation coming out of animal pens that is more intelligent than what is going on in here.
Phathry25
Posts: 7473
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:09 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Location: WI
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by Phathry25 »

jlv wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:13 am Google maps says it's a 1.5 mile walk from the Ellipse to the Capital building. Not a 45 minute walk unless you are extremely slow.
Amazing what even the littlest bit of fact checking can do. I'm always impressed by some of the complete garbage shared on Facebook that can so easily be proven false. I honestly didn't think I knew people who were so dumb.
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 7796
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

m121c wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:37 pmTell me, was the Michigan representative inciting violence against Trump supports with her social media post?
One tiny peep in a cacophony of death threats and kidnapping plots that have ACTUALLY been attempted. Oh gee, she also happens to be black? Well, you better put the screws to them even harder then. We haven't given them enough to be enraged about? You poor, privileged, pampered cracker. Do you have a bible quote that explains our superiority to them? You're digging your heels in at the absolutely worst time to do so. At some point you'll have to realize that the rapidly growing number of Chump allies are jumping ship and turning on him for plenty of good reason because he went beyond treason. 'Tis the season to put him in preason.

Slow down Mason, you're typing too furiously to spell correctly, or haven't learned. Try some CBD oil. That should ease the rage.

P.S. Thanks for the sig quote. You've helped me fully encapsulate my forum experience with two quotes.

/end troll
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
m121c
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

To provide a little further thinking.. the average adult walks 2-3 mph or 15-20 min per mile google says. If you have ever walked in a crowd, more times than not, the flow of a large amount of unorganized people is a tad slow. Then theres other obstacles.. probably only assume it was a 20-30 minute 1.5 mile walk if it were a straight shot for a normal adult with no obstacles by themselves.

There was also multiple layers of fencing the first set of rioters had to go through.

Im not saying that the timeline is right and it was a 45 minute walk.. but its also not as simple as it being just a 20 minute walk based on geographical location. Anyways...

jlv wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:03 am I agree that the reasons given by Twitter are ridiculous. Twitter should have just said "we're banning Trump because we don't like him". That's their right. They don't have to bake this gay wedding cake. (I don't think a Christian baker should have to either. I'm part of the .1% of the population that actually tries to be consistent.)

If you had a web site, would you let Trump post on it this week? If you would you're braver than I am!
I suppose that would be better than citing some weak ToS excuse, but I still don’t agree with it. Normally I am consistent with a private business having the right to conduct their business the way they want so long as it is in accordance to the law. However, in the instance of social media, the purpose and protections, make it a much different circumstance.

I think its dangerous and wrong for a handful of companies with a handful of decision makers having the ability to completely censor information of political opponents or direct competition. They were built on the ideas of a virtual public forum or “town square”. Thats fine if they don’t want to be that anymore.. but then they need to remove the protections awarded to them that other companies do not have.

Parlor, a competition to the social media giants, was effectively wiped out in 24 hours because it was being used primarily by conservatives as an alternative. Coincidentally it was the #1 downloaded app on the app store ahead of Jack Dorseys new Signal app... and within 24 hours its wiped away because “it was doing enough moderation to prevent bad content” like the others. After it was removed, Dorsey posted a screenshot if his app at #1... talk about bad taste.

Parlors Ceo said it best by saying there was nothing worse on Parlor then what can be found on any of the conglomerates services.

We cannot twist these mega-corporations to be the same as a small wedding cake bakery. These mega corporations need to be checked when they threaten the good of the common. One pissed of gay couple is not the same as completely removing ideas/competition you don’t like. If Twitter can remove who they want and censor information.. then others can use Twitter for such a thing. Power, corruption, and tyranny at its finest imo.
DBRider251
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:38 pm
Team: LCQ Studios

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by DBRider251 »

jlv wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:05 am It was antifa! I knew it! Seriously, I was watching and large parts of the crowd did leave early.
I was watching as well, but there weren’t enough people leaving as the speech was starting to equate to the number of people at the Capitol. Am I saying some of the Trump crowd didn’t join in? No. I believe some did. But why is it such a far stretch of the imagination that someone besides conservatives started the Capitol riots? Didn’t literally everyone say that the BLM riots started because of people outside the BLM group then BLM joined in?

I condemn both fully, but I still think there should be logical consistency.
Phathry25 wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:21 am
jlv wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:13 am Google maps says it's a 1.5 mile walk from the Ellipse to the Capital building. Not a 45 minute walk unless you are extremely slow.
Amazing what even the littlest bit of fact checking can do. I'm always impressed by some of the complete garbage shared on Facebook that can so easily be proven false. I honestly didn't think I knew people who were so dumb.
The time it takes one person isn’t proportional to the time it would take a group.

Apple Maps has 3 main routes from the Ellipse to the Capitol, one taking around 32 minutes, 2 taking around 37 minutes to walk. This is ignoring any traffic lights or other inhibitors that it took to get there. The group traveling would be measured from 1st person who left, until enough people were there to storm the Capitol.

Yes, it would only take one person around 30 minutes. But a group moves slower. It still remains that the amount of people needed to equate to the amount of people who were participating in the protests would’ve needed to leave almost as soon as the speech started. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of a mass exodus from Trump’s speech as it started, as I’m sure every news outlet would’ve flipped the cameras to everyone leaving.
TeamHavocRacing wrote:it's all the liberals fault
m121c
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

TeamHavocRacing wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:45 pm
m121c wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:37 pmTell me, was the Michigan representative inciting violence against Trump supports with her social media post?
One tiny peep in a cacophony of death threats and kidnapping plots that have ACTUALLY been attempted. Oh gee, she also happens to be black? Well, you better put the screws to them even harder then. We haven't given them enough to be enraged about? You poor, privileged, pampered cracker. Do you have a bible quote that explains our superiority to them? You're digging your heels in at the absolutely worst time to do so. At some point you'll have to realize that the rapidly growing number of Chump allies are jumping ship and turning on him for plenty of good reason because he went beyond treason. 'Tis the season to put him in preason.

Slow down Mason, you're typing too furiously to spell correctly, or haven't learned. Try some CBD oil. That should ease the rage.

P.S. Thanks for the sig quote. You've helped me fully encapsulate my forum experience with two quotes.

/end troll
Woah... what are you even saying. :? Why is it with any viewpoint where you can use skin color, ethnicity, or religion as a crutch you do so? Showing true colors I suppose..

You post like a Trump tweet that's allowed more characters.
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 7796
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

m121c wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:28 pmYou post like a Trump tweet that's allowed more characters.
What do you mean by that? Are you actually criticizing Trump for his behavior?!?!?! Are you actually admitting to something negative about him? Congrats if you have. Otherwise, keep digging in.
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
m121c
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

It is no surprise you are shocked by this... just shows how little you read and how quick you are to react. You find one sentence you can strawman, then you go on a 500 word rant of insults... sounds familiar. You are so appalled by Trump, yet you seemingly do not apply that moral compass to your own character.

If you go back in my post history you can find multiple instances where I am critical of Trumps behavior/Twitter. You might even find some criticism of his budget spending, never was a big fan of that. Heck, I even agreed with JLV that Trumps legal team was practically tying their shoe laces together. I could go on.

You seem to be unable to let go of your preconceived notions of me, or anyone that disagrees on this forum for that matter. Might be symptom of old age maybe.
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 7796
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

m121c wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:49 pm500 word rant
Ha! The pot calling the kettle black. You have keywords you keep using like strawman. The man is made of cheeseburgers more than straws. Just trying to show you reality, since you can't grasp it, even if it's spoon-fed syllable by syllable from someone you "respect" like JLV. I see the congress also has some white and uptight people on the right that can't grasp it either. It's truly pathetic you think this is somehow better than if Clinton was president. Keep trying to revise history and watch how it's judged in the future.
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
m121c
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

TeamHavocRacing wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:45 pm
m121c wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:49 pm500 word rant
Ha! The pot calling the kettle black.
I suppose if you want to call my responses rants go ahead... I'd like to think they are rather thought out, or at least I try to make them be. At the very least I attempt to go through a persons post point by point. I guess my "rants" would be a little more brief if I just stuck to generalizing, projections, and insults like you do.
TeamHavocRacing wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:45 pm You have keywords you keep using like strawman.
It is because it is exactly what you are doing.
TeamHavocRacing wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:45 pm I see the congress also has some white and uptight people on the right that can't grasp it either.
Moral standards for thee, but not for meeeeeee. If JLv is more consistent in his views then you are... you might want to be careful with how you play with the racial and religious insults. I support you though Havoc, however nasty and pathetic your jabs may be, they only help my point.

Your last few posts have really showed your reality alright... I just don't think you see what reality the rest of us see. Keep it up though, you are doing great sweety; just enlightening us all with every post! /s
TeamHavocRacing wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:45 pm It's truly pathetic you think this is somehow better than if Clinton was president. Keep trying to revise history and watch how it's judged in the future.
There it is... those little voices bouncing in the empty head of yours. I think this? When did I say this? What history am I trying to revise? I'm a 24 year old college student dude. I have no position to revise anything. Would it be revising history for the media giants to claim Trump stoked a riot and then removed all his tweets and videos demanding respect for the police, peace, and for people to go home?
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 7796
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

Ok ok. Trump just said it's time for unity and peace. Let's just do as he says and get along. Why can't anyone understand that this has been his stance the ENTIRE time he's been in office? I believe him. Totally. You've never seen anyone so committed to peace and unity and unity and peace. They're so great...unity and peace...together. For everyone. Unity and peace...especially my people. They're very special people. They're not violent! Not my people! Never!
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 13928
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by jlv »

m121c wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:14 pm To provide a little further thinking.. the average adult walks 2-3 mph or 15-20 min per mile google says. If you have ever walked in a crowd, more times than not, the flow of a large amount of unorganized people is a tad slow. Then theres other obstacles.. probably only assume it was a 20-30 minute 1.5 mile walk if it were a straight shot for a normal adult with no obstacles by themselves.

There was also multiple layers of fencing the first set of rioters had to go through.

Im not saying that the timeline is right and it was a 45 minute walk.. but its also not as simple as it being just a 20 minute walk based on geographical location. Anyways...
This is like arguing about whether we can see 5 lights when there are only 4. Anyone arguing that 1.5 miles is a 45 minute walk *wants* to believe lies. I'm almost as old as Havoc and I could cover 1.5 miles on foot in 15 minutes without getting out of breath. It's a straight walk down Pennsylvania Ave and I don't think the guys beating the unconscious cop with an American flag are going to care about honoring crossing signals.
m121c wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:14 pm I suppose that would be better than citing some weak ToS excuse, but I still don’t agree with it. Normally I am consistent with a private business having the right to conduct their business the way they want so long as it is in accordance to the law. However, in the instance of social media, the purpose and protections, make it a much different circumstance.

I think its dangerous and wrong for a handful of companies with a handful of decision makers having the ability to completely censor information of political opponents or direct competition. They were built on the ideas of a virtual public forum or “town square”. Thats fine if they don’t want to be that anymore.. but then they need to remove the protections awarded to them that other companies do not have.

Parlor, a competition to the social media giants, was effectively wiped out in 24 hours because it was being used primarily by conservatives as an alternative. Coincidentally it was the #1 downloaded app on the app store ahead of Jack Dorseys new Signal app... and within 24 hours its wiped away because “it was doing enough moderation to prevent bad content” like the others. After it was removed, Dorsey posted a screenshot if his app at #1... talk about bad taste.

Parlors Ceo said it best by saying there was nothing worse on Parlor then what can be found on any of the conglomerates services.

We cannot twist these mega-corporations to be the same as a small wedding cake bakery. These mega corporations need to be checked when they threaten the good of the common. One pissed of gay couple is not the same as completely removing ideas/competition you don’t like. If Twitter can remove who they want and censor information.. then others can use Twitter for such a thing. Power, corruption, and tyranny at its finest imo.
So you want to bring back the fairness doctrine? Do you not see how this could be used against your side? Whenever someone proposes some new government power, it's best to consider how your least favorite politician will use it rather than your most favorite.
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 7796
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

I love how it's "1st amendment rights!" But then...

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'". “True threats of violence” that are directed at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected. However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes. Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.

Y'know, this shit wasn't written yesterday by some radical left, corporation-owned media mouthpiece. It describes Trump to a T....rump. You oughta put that in your mouth and roll it around for a while. Whip out your pocket constitution and refute that!
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 7796
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

The second this second impeachment went through, Richard Nixon's fist came up out of the ground and made a peace sign.
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 7796
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

jlv wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:48 amAbout the Twitter and Facebook bans, I think what we're seeing is no company wants to be the forum he instigates the inauguration day riot from. I mean, if you ran a web site, would you want him posting there and exposing you to that liability? Section 230 might protect you from some liability but that doesn't mean you can't be sued. On top of that if something horrible happens you get to go down in history as the site that hosted it.
Jack Dorsey hasn't been lost to the gravity of the situation, but has very solid ground to stand on...

"I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump, or how we got here," Dorsey began a lengthy Twitter thread. "After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?
I believe this was the right decision for Twitter, we faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all.
"That said, having to ban an account has real and significant ramifications. While there are clear and obvious exceptions, I feel a ban is a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation. And a time for us to reflect on our operations and the environment around us," the CEO went on.
Extraordinary behavior calls for extraordinary action.
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
m121c
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

jlv wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:33 am
This is like arguing about whether we can see 5 lights when there are only 4. Anyone arguing that 1.5 miles is a 45 minute walk *wants* to believe lies. I'm almost as old as Havoc and I could cover 1.5 miles on foot in 15 minutes without getting out of breath. It's a straight walk down Pennsylvania Ave and I don't think the guys beating the unconscious cop with an American flag are going to care about honoring crossing signals.
My comments were more about how your view was simplistic, not that I believe the truth was it was 45 minute walk. If the case is to be made is that everything was hunky dory until Trump spoke on January 6th where he then incited a violent mob with his words at that moment (an actionable crime as he has now been impeached for), then you have to take in all considerations in to effect. Now if you want to make the claim those people had already been incited from months of angry tweets, then the timeline doesn't matter and we are discussing this over nothing. Really it's a stupid argument we are having, it was all wrong.

Trump's rhetoric leading up to that day was wrong and fully divisive. So were many other people in the media and politics. That doesn't excuse it, but the media/democrats can't sit there with their Pikachu faces and pretend like they didn't have their fire stick poking at the coals and Trump was over there dumping lighter fluid on the fire. That is just silly.

What I still cannot fathom is why there was so little enforcement that day on the capitol. You have literally EVERYONE in one spot for a day that many were told to believe WAS THE DAY. Not by just Trump, but the media, by the politicians, by everyone. There were internal alarms going off for days prior to the event. I think saying what happened on the 6th as entirely something only Trump planned, incited, and wanted to happen is something you would have to want to believe. In the same breath, I think claiming that Trump didn't want there to be an angry/violent response is something you would have to want to believe. He is the president, no president should have motive like that, and it is clear he was not helping deescalate leading up to the day.
jlv wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:33 am So you want to bring back the fairness doctrine? Do you not see how this could be used against your side? Whenever someone proposes some new government power, it's best to consider how your least favorite politician will use it rather than your most favorite.
Fairness doctrine was long before I was alive, and completely different mode of delivery. I honestly had no clue what it was until I did some research this morning. That's not what I want at all. I would rather not have government step in with additional regulations, but at some point when the mega corps are effecting the commons and actively pushing the boundaries of antitrust laws... they need to be checked.

What my point is, if Twitter is going to actively be on the side of removing people like the president of the United States, or their competition Parlor, on the grounds it is in the best interest of public safety... due to incitation, lying, etc. etc. Then when they DON'T act on that for other people, particularly those who have a certain political bias to them, they should be liable. Right now, they are awarded protections that practically treat them like they are a public square, and by all means the way it is used is a public square, yet they get to control the discourse they want in that public square. That doesn't mean I feel the federal government should force Twitter, Facebook, etc. to display both sides of the argument, but the social media giants need to make a decision whether they want to be a public forum, or if they want to be publisher and only allow one side of the argument. Essentially, do you want your damn protections or not?

Fox news is a more right-wing news source. CNN is left-wing. Lets say Jack Dorsey does not like Fox anymore, and decides to permanently remove their ability to distribute information on his platform because he believes they are propogandists who incite violence (this is the road we are dangerously heading down). Yet CNN can verifiably be shown to conduct the same behavior but to a different audience, well then Fox should be able hold Twitter legally liable for their biased enforcement of their ToS. They are effectively being a publisher, not a public platform. Twitter actively suppressed a credible news story on Hunter Biden because they didn't want it to result in any bad press for Joe Biden leading up to the election; like what happened to Hillary in 2016 with the emails... you don't see a problem with that?

We are seeing a digital version of Socrates "corrupting the youth" in my opinion.
TeamHavocRacing wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:37 am I love how it's "1st amendment rights!" But then...

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
And a little more research would show you that the "fighting words doctrine" has been limited from other cases due to the 1st.

Although most speech falls under the protection of the First Amendment freedom of speech, expressions that are “lewd and obscene, . . . profane, . . . libelous, and . . . insulting or ‘fighting’ words” cannot claim constitutional protection. Murphy argued that fighting words “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

He added that whenever such speech fails to “contribute to the expression of ideas [or] possessed any ‘social value’ for the truth,” the right to utter that speech can be limited by government when it seeks to promote the “social interest in order and morality.”


https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/ar ... -hampshire

I suppose Antifa and BLM can thank the limitations that have been applied since Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire... their little American Flag bonfires wouldn't be possible: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/articl ... ting-words

Cherry. Pick.
Post Reply