Political Debate Thread

[jlv]

Here's something else I saw today that's very disturbing. Not because of possibility of accidentally nuking someone, but the opposite concern. Look at step 4:

The controller would first ask for authentication. POTUS would be read aloud a series of alphanumeric as and challenged to provide the corresponding alphanumeric on the nuclear authentication card he carries.

Does anyone really think Trump could do this? What about Biden? Yeah right. If we need to respond to a legitimate nuclear attack we are basically defenseless!

[Hi Im Skyqe]

The usual way to give closure to the losing side is for the candidate to concede an election he obviously lost. At this point the whole 75 million voters thing does more to indict those voters' judgement than it does to legitimize Trump. This guy cheered on a violent attack on the capital building during a joint session of congress counting the electoral votes that left five people dead. He is an insane sociopath and he never even tried to hide it. The people who endorsed him and argued that character doesn't matter need to take their shattered credibility and go home. The people who listened to them need to find better leaders. This isn't fun for me since there are a lot of people who I used to like who I can never take seriously again.

On a more positive note, here's a different poll showing some hope for sanity in the Republican party.

The problem at this point that I can see is, if these bans and removal of platforming for parlour carries out then there will for sure be more action taken..

I 100% agree, the POTUS should be much younger and capable person than what the trend is now... I think you are overreacting here JLV, Biden would be fine. He is very savvy with the teleprompter. He might miss a few numbers and letters here and there subsequently end up nuking the wrong location, but I am sure they would find a way to put a positive spin on it.

[TeamHavocRacing]

If we need to respond to a legitimate nuclear attack we are basically defenseless!

Now you got me with something eating at me I didn't want to acknowledge. It was just another horrifying thought associated with his term that Mason kept referring to as TDS. What a bunch of shit. The derangement really lies in the rabid following he stirs up and agitates into what we witnessed.

[jlv]

Yeah the whole TDS thing falls apart when he acts out the worst things people imagined he might do. You'd have to be deranged at this point to not see him for what he is. I still can't believe what happened on Wednesday.

About 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.

I don't agree with AWS canceling Parler's servers. They're just the server provider. No one cares who the server host is.

[TeamHavocRacing]

That's farther than I expected it to go. However, even they won't sponsor an American President inciting political violence against his own country. Wow, I just typed that. Bizarre.

[TeamHavocRacing]

Looks like Chump is gonna have to stand on the street corner and scream all of his conspiracy theories and lies now.

[m121c]

About 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.

I don't agree with AWS canceling Parler's servers. They're just the server provider. No one cares who the server host is.

If they want to play publisher and not let Trump "instigate a inauguration day riot" based on ToS policies, then they need to be held accountable for not applying ToS policies equally. While conservatives are facing shadow bans, suppression, and throttling on a daily basis... high profile media members, democrats, and extremist left activists are rarely checked until outrage forces the social media oligarchs to act.

Representative Cynthia A. Johnson from Michigan is still freely tweeting and retweeting hate for republicans and Trump after she had this to say after the Michigan election hearings (where she is seen completely acting out of line):



What if it's messages like that, which might inspire someone to do something terrible? You would think, if Twitter is truly just trying to do good by the people/nation, then surely they would not want someone on their platform who says things like this? I mean a Trump supporter riding in the back of a pickup (unarmed) was executed pointblank this summer by a BLM/Antifa activist. Yet, there is no media outcry for the danger conservatives might be under due to extreme left activists.

I challenge you to read Trumps speech on January 6th (it's a challenging read I will admit) and tell me where his words are anywhere near as bad as hers. If it's level of power that is the importance, many democrat leaders during last summer failed to condemn, and many even continually stoked, the often violent/destructive protest events that lead to millions of dollar in damages/theft, destroyed business, countless injured, and many tragic deaths. Yet, NONE of them were temporarily silenced. Twitter went as far as to suppress the presidents video message pleading for peace and respect for the capitol police.... Now tell me... why would Twitter remove a video that was calling for peace? Why is it Twitters job to decide what you and I can and can't talk about? Now YouTube is no longer allowing anyone to make the assertion the election had any issues... that is not good. That's fighting a fire with a flamethrower.

If they can't keep their biases out of their vague ToS enforcements, then they can't be considered a public forum, and as such they should be held liable as publishers. You might enjoy it now because it is against a person/idea you hate, but you are allowing a small select handful of people decide what information you get to see, engage with, and argue against. That's dangerous to me.

[TeamHavocRacing]

If they want to play publisher and not let Trump "instigate a inauguration day riot"...That's dangerous to me.

It's clear that you have no threshold for what constitutes incitement of violence. The fact that there's been several plots to kidnap our own lawmakers and then this shit hasn't been mentioned AT ALL by you. Still have your head in the sand? Here's the language you chose to ignore...

...we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people.(What???Since when???)

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country(From who?) with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

If Guliani's "Trial by Combat" has any ambiguity, let me help you with some 7th grade level comprehension. That means fight. Trump used fight in his speech at least 20 times and whipped his rabble into a rabid frenzy. Still have questions about what agitation is? You still think the election was stolen? Too bad. Too late. Toodle loo. WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER.

[DBRider251]

[TeamHavocRacing]

LoL @ the source. The National Pulse. Fully questionable, far-right bias. Did they count the attendees at Chump's inauguration too? When is somebody gonna come up with something actually substantial as an argument here? You guys tryna say it was crisis actors? Deep State? Hillary?

[DBRider251]

I won't have a discussion with you Havoc. You don't, and have never, cared about a decent discussion. You go straight to ad-hominem attacks. Have a nice day.

[m121c]

If they want to play publisher and not let Trump "instigate a inauguration day riot"...That's dangerous to me.

It's clear that you have no threshold for what constitutes incitement of violence. The fact that there's been several plots to kidnap our own lawmakers and then this shit hasn't been mentioned AT ALL by you. Still have your head in the sand? Here's the language you chose to ignore...

...we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people.(What???Since when???)

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country(From who?) with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

If Guliani's "Trial by Combat" has any ambiguity, let me help you with some 7th grade level comprehension. That means fight. Trump used fight in his speech at least 20 times and whipped his rabble into a rabid frenzy. Still have questions about what agitation is? You still think the election was stolen? Too bad. Too late. Toodle loo. WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER.

My post wasn't about what Trump said and whether what he did was inciting violence/rioting, nor anything about Rudy. Do you just have fake arguments floating around in the echo chamber of a head? Tell me, was the Michigan representative inciting violence against Trump supports with her social media post?

My post was about runaway wagon that is created when these big tech companies are allowed to monopolize all things information, and imbed themselves in the political landscape. I silently applaud that jlv keeps this thread rather unmoderated and open for public discourse, which surprises me he doesn't seem to give off much issue with it. Although your complete nonsense, insults, and trolling does get annoying; I'm glad you have the right to do so. Because in the end, you look like a lunatic activist with no real reason to your believes other than you think the orange man is evil.

[jlv]

If they want to play publisher and not let Trump "instigate a inauguration day riot" based on ToS policies, then they need to be held accountable for not applying ToS policies equally. While conservatives are facing shadow bans, suppression, and throttling on a daily basis... high profile media members, democrats, and extremist left activists are rarely checked until outrage forces the social media oligarchs to act.

Representative Cynthia A. Johnson from Michigan is still freely tweeting and retweeting hate for republicans and Trump after she had this to say after the Michigan election hearings (where she is seen completely acting out of line):



What if it's messages like that, which might inspire someone to do something terrible? You would think, if Twitter is truly just trying to do good by the people/nation, then surely they would not want someone on their platform who says things like this? I mean a Trump supporter riding in the back of a pickup (unarmed) was executed pointblank this summer by a BLM/Antifa activist. Yet, there is no media outcry for the danger conservatives might be under due to extreme left activists.

I challenge you to read Trumps speech on January 6th (it's a challenging read I will admit) and tell me where his words are anywhere near as bad as hers. If it's level of power that is the importance, many democrat leaders during last summer failed to condemn, and many even continually stoked, the often violent/destructive protest events that lead to millions of dollar in damages/theft, destroyed business, countless injured, and many tragic deaths. Yet, NONE of them were temporarily silenced. Twitter went as far as to suppress the presidents video message pleading for peace and respect for the capitol police.... Now tell me... why would Twitter remove a video that was calling for peace? Why is it Twitters job to decide what you and I can and can't talk about? Now YouTube is no longer allowing anyone to make the assertion the election had any issues... that is not good. That's fighting a fire with a flamethrower.

If they can't keep their biases out of their vague ToS enforcements, then they can't be considered a public forum, and as such they should be held liable as publishers. You might enjoy it now because it is against a person/idea you hate, but you are allowing a small select handful of people decide what information you get to see, engage with, and argue against. That's dangerous to me.

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!

[jlv]

It was antifa! I knew it! Seriously, I was watching and large parts of the crowd did leave early.

[jlv]

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.