Political Debate Thread

I've heard conversation coming out of animal pens that is more intelligent than what is going on in here.
m121c
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

I do want to make very clear, I am not equating Donald Trump to Socrates... just want to make that statement before someone decides to pluck that little line out to make the projection, "YoU ReAlLy ThInK TrUmP iS a SoCrAteS??????". What I am saying is, the precedent it sets could be the digital parallel to that.
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 8361
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

Right, because those groups are so notorious for their attempted coups and capitol insurrections. :roll: Still myopic af. Again with the most inept comparison.
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
m121c
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

Ah... the burning, defacing, vandalism, and destruction on court houses and federal buildings across the nation must not be insurrection to you. Is point blank execution of police officers on duty insurrection to you? Had Donald Trump won the election, you don't believe Antifa/BLM would not have had violence? Oh how quick you seemingly forget the violence that occurred the day Trump was inaugurated. Media will try to suppress that, but it is there. Beautiful thing about the internet is even if you change your headlines and articles... it's still there. You must also forget, either from old age or selectiveness, that this is not the first time in recent history a capitol building was occupied and swarmed because people were upset. Might not have been in DC but it should not be lost that this hasn't happened before from the other side of the isle.

But yes, prior to the 6th, Trumps supporters were totally known to take over capitol buildings, vandalize federal property, fight police, and attempt coups.
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 8361
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

You're drowning.
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 14913
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by jlv »

m121c wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm My comments were more about how your view was simplistic, not that I believe the truth was it was 45 minute walk.
"Trumps says there are 5 lights."
"I only see 4 lights."
"It's complicated..."

The only way this isn't simple is if you want to believe lies.
m121c wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm 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.
It's an old law but the Dems keep trying to bring it back. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. Having the government dictate what web sites can post would be playing right into the liberals hands. Of course, in the Trump era tactical genius isn't something Republicans are known for. (With the obvious exception of Cocaine Mitch.)

Don't think about how you would use that power. Think about how your opponent would use it.
m121c wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm 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
Watching people wrap themselves in the flag while they literally shit in the halls of congress bothers me more than flag burners. If there were any justice they wouldn't be allowed to touch an American flag again. Let them fly confederate flags. It suits them better.
m121c wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:26 pm But yes, prior to the 6th, Trumps supporters were totally known to take over capitol buildings, vandalize federal property, fight police, and attempt coups.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

(I hate Trump for forcing me to agree with The Daily Show.)
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: 8361
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

It stands to reason that Sleepy Joe will benefit from working closely with Cocaine Mitch. They are already chatting.
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 8361
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

The 25th amendment wasn't invoked so Trump could go on this 11th hour spite spree. Yay! He's probably gonna leave an upper-decker, shit on the oval office desk(as if he hasn't already) and steal more stuff like the bust of Honest Abe. How quaintly symbolic. His base must be really proud.
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
m121c
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

jlv wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:13 am The only way this isn't simple is if you want to believe lies.
Please tell me you see a problem with this statement and that analogy.... If my thinking complicates your simple view, would that not make you believe maybe that view isn't exactly a full truth? If the narrative that Trump created an immediate and deliberate violent mob (criminal act) to run down to the capitol with his speech the timeline absolutely matters. Any simplification is really an act of diluting due process. We can hate the guy, think what he did was wrong, etc. etc. but skipping any due process is not what the country is about.

jlv wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:13 am Don't think about how you would use that power. Think about how your opponent would use it.
Fair.

January 21st, 2021. Trump purchases Twitter, decides he believes CNN propagates lies, incites violence, promotes division, and claims they conduct defamation against their political rivals so he permanently removes their ability to use the platform. While he is at it, he bans AOC, Pelosi, Obama, and others for their words that promoted the riots this past summer (not to mention the Russia BS).

Other companies follow suit because they don't want to cross a social media giant, lose business, or risk future relationships. You good with this? I mean it's technically Donald Trumps website now right?

I feel you are misconstruing my stances. In no way am I saying the government should have the power to dictate what a website posts, but I am saying the government shouldn't protect platforms (under the idea they are essentially a open public square) who chose to decide what their website posts. Because really it's one in the same, just different ways going about it. If the government protects these mega corps and they are in no way held liable for the antitrust violations and/or openly restricting an entire political voice based on unequal enforcement of their terms of services, you effectively have a civilian company doing the dirty work for the government. It allows for politicians to jump in bed with Twitter, so long as they and Twitter agree on politics. They protect Twitter, Twitter protects them. You don't see it that way?

Let's assume Twitter was owned by Alex Jones and Trump is going into his second term. You still okay with it? It's been a gradual progression, but with each new line in the sand that social media gets away with stepping over, the closer we get to seeing complete corruption between the largest corporate powers the world has ever seen with the most powerful government. Call it doomsday talk, but I think it's dancing on a slippery slope.
jlv wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:13 am Watching people wrap themselves in the flag while they literally shit in the halls of congress bothers me more than flag burners. If there were any justice they wouldn't be allowed to touch an American flag again. Let them fly confederate flags. It suits them better.
Totally agree. I'd say they both are equally disgusting, but I'm not really the type to "wear" the flag. I think clothing designed to look like it is made of the flag is wrong, I always cringe on the 4th when you see it all over. The full flag as maybe a symbol on the chest or sleeve is fine, RWB clothing? Cool. Completely stars and stripes wrapped around you? Eh no thanks.

While I bring up CNN... this really is going to help #Unite:



He doubles down the next day by saying if you vote for the same candidate as someone you are "on the same side" and share "common points of interest" therefore insinuates that because you vote for 1 of the 2 main choices you clearly are similar to everyone else who voted for that person. Ya that doesn't incite people to do bad things. :roll:
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 8361
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

Trump is rejecting any comparison to Nixon right now amongst other tantrums and shouting. Fair enough. Like I said, Ol' Tricky Dick is tap dancing in his crypt or whatever since he's now relegated to second worst. He was horribly paranoid and racist, but no seditionist.
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 14913
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by jlv »

TeamHavocRacing wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:45 pm The 25th amendment wasn't invoked so Trump could go on this 11th hour spite spree. Yay! He's probably gonna leave an upper-decker, shit on the oval office desk(as if he hasn't already) and steal more stuff like the bust of Honest Abe. How quaintly symbolic. His base must be really proud.
I don't think anyone wants him in charge for the last few days but there aren't any good options. The 25th needs 2/3 in both houses so it wouldn't have made it past the house. Impeachment is more likely but it doesn't sound like Cocaine Mitch has the votes for it as of now. So we have this weird situation where the cabinet is apparently answering to Pence in a sort of mini-coup. At least the Trump isn't denying National Guard deployment this way but it's definitely not ideal.

I don't think the bust was *the* Lincoln bust. Wouldn't surprise me to see them loot the place like the Clintons did though.
m121c wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:14 pm Please tell me you see a problem with this statement and that analogy.... If my thinking complicates your simple view, would that not make you believe maybe that view isn't exactly a full truth? If the narrative that Trump created an immediate and deliberate violent mob (criminal act) to run down to the capitol with his speech the timeline absolutely matters. Any simplification is really an act of diluting due process. We can hate the guy, think what he did was wrong, etc. etc. but skipping any due process is not what the country is about.
It doesn't take 45 minutes to cover 1.5 miles on foot. It really is that simple. You're free to argue the crowd spontaneously attacked with no direction from Trump, but the 45 minute thing provides no alibi.
m121c wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:14 pm January 21st, 2021. Trump purchases Twitter, decides he believes CNN propagates lies, incites violence, promotes division, and claims they conduct defamation against their political rivals so he permanently removes their ability to use the platform. While he is at it, he bans AOC, Pelosi, Obama, and others for their words that promoted the riots this past summer (not to mention the Russia BS).

Other companies follow suit because they don't want to cross a social media giant, lose business, or risk future relationships. You good with this? I mean it's technically Donald Trumps website now right?
Yes. That'd be his right. Of course, no other companies would follow suit since CNN didn't send a mob to attack the Capitol, but they're free to do what they want. If you don't like it switch to USENET. You can't get banned there. (Really is a shame people left USENET for web forums BTW.)
m121c wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:14 pm I feel you are misconstruing my stances. In no way am I saying the government should have the power to dictate what a website posts, but I am saying the government shouldn't protect platforms (under the idea they are essentially a open public square) who chose to decide what their website posts. Because really it's one in the same, just different ways going about it. If the government protects these mega corps and they are in no way held liable for the antitrust violations and/or openly restricting an entire political voice based on unequal enforcement of their terms of services, you effectively have a civilian company doing the dirty work for the government. It allows for politicians to jump in bed with Twitter, so long as they and Twitter agree on politics. They protect Twitter, Twitter protects them. You don't see it that way?
So you think they should be liable for what their users post? Trumps account wouldn't have lasted 2 weeks if that were the case. Section 230 is the only reason he lasted as long as he did. Antitrust will go nowhere because they aren't monopolies. There are plenty of alternative forums to use.

(Selfishly, I don't actually like safe harbor laws like section 230. It creates a whack-a-mole situation when dealing with pirates.)
m121c wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:14 pm Let's assume Twitter was owned by Alex Jones and Trump is going into his second term. You still okay with it? It's been a gradual progression, but with each new line in the sand that social media gets away with stepping over, the closer we get to seeing complete corruption between the largest corporate powers the world has ever seen with the most powerful government. Call it doomsday talk, but I think it's dancing on a slippery slope.
Again, yes. If Alex Jones somehow managed to build a site as popular as Twitter he'd have every right to own it. Why shouldn't he? But the reality is he's nuts so he owns a joke like Infowars.
m121c wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:14 pm While I bring up CNN... this really is going to help #Unite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRJsD7xvOMY

He doubles down the next day by saying if you vote for the same candidate as someone you are "on the same side" and share "common points of interest" therefore insinuates that because you vote for 1 of the 2 main choices you clearly are similar to everyone else who voted for that person. Ya that doesn't incite people to do bad things. :roll:
Yeah that's ridiculous. Pretty sure you can find Islamic terrorists who supported Obama. Does that mean all Obama supporters are terrorists? Of course not.

The thing with Trump is he actually courts the racists. "Very fine people", "Stand back, stand by." It's no wonder he has their undying loyalty. Now we actually have high level Republicans saying you can't impeach Trump or there will be more violence. It's like it's a terrorist organization now. Now sure how it's going to be possible to get the stench of Trump off. It's his party now and it sucks.
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.
m121c
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

jlv wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:22 am So you think they should be liable for what their users post?Trumps account wouldn't have lasted 2 weeks if that were the case. Section 230 is the only reason he lasted as long as he did. Antitrust will go nowhere because they aren't monopolies. There are plenty of alternative forums to use.
I don’t know what the solution is, but I don't think right now is it. I’d agree to disagree on the monopoly view. Its not one company controlling it sure.. but its certainly a few of them who just so happen to be cohesive and want to control the discourse of information.. and they are.

The theme has been “theres alternatives go there.. Twitter can do what it wants” and then there was Parlor...

Apple is fine to not want Parlor on their app store. However, if they want to cite the reasoning is because its a hot bed for right wing extremism and they are acting out of the best interest of the public... well we should fairly look at the other content on their app store they won’t remove. Tiktok is still fully able to be downloaded even though it is highly criticized by the intel community as a shell for the Chinese government to surveil and develop data on Americans. Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube all have pretty vile and terrible content on them as they claim Parlor did.

Twitter is fine to ban the President of the United States.. but if their reasoning is he is infringing on their vague ToS.. well they damn well better apply that equally and not just against their political rivals. Any instance you can say Trump incited violence, Im sure you can find a democrat politician or 2 doing the same. Spend a day on AOC’s page.. she wanted a Trump Admin hitlist for crying out loud.

The problem I have is each of these companies claim to want to be for free and open discourse. Thats why they have the protections they do as platforms. However, we are increasingly seeing these companies use their enormous powers to rid their platforms of competing/rival ideas, people, and companies. They are injecting their strong power/money into our public elections in the form of influence, money, and control. That’s wrong. Idk what the answer is but I see it getting worse before it gets better if something isn’t done.

jlv wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:22 am Again, yes. If Alex Jones somehow managed to build a site as popular as Twitter he'd have every right to own it. Why shouldn't he? But the reality is he's nuts so he owns a joke like Infowars.
Right to own it, sure. We can’t pretend that just because they are websites that the purpose and influence they hold are the same. Twitter is a platform, Infowars is a publisher.

I find it hard to believe that you would be comfortable having Donald Trump and Alex Jones have full control of a powerful platform like Twitter or Facebook. I think equating them to just websites is dancing around the fact at just how massive they are. Maybe its too outlandish and extreme of a hypothetical to think about.
Racers52
Posts: 3216
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:10 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by Racers52 »

m121c wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 5:53 pm Twitter is fine to ban the President of the United States.. but if their reasoning is he is infringing on their vague ToS.. well they damn well better apply that equally and not just against their political rivals. Any instance you can say Trump incited violence, Im sure you can find a democrat politician or 2 doing the same. Spend a day on AOC’s page.. she wanted a Trump Admin hitlist for crying out loud.
This is it.

The hypocrisy from these companies has been exposed.
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 14913
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by jlv »

What you guys are imagining is Neil Gorsuch fairly applying Twitter's TOS for them. What you'll get is Lois Lerner deleting conservatives by keyword search not just on Twitter but on independent conservative sites as well.

Our problem as republicans right now is the whole party is built around pretending Trump's lies are true. We have a situation where multiple republicans spread lies that resulted in an unprecedented deadly attack on congress and none of them are being held accountable by the party. The only republicans who are being threatened with censure are Cindy McCain and Liz Cheney, both for showing disloyalty to Trump by doing things that are ethically right. We have guys like Trump, Hawley and Cruz (I hate to say it about Cruz but it's true) who egged on an attempted mass murder and we're going to punish McCain and Cheney instead. This is total madness and giving Trump a bigger platform only makes things worse. Twitter actually did us a favor by banning him. Can you imagine if he had been tweeting this whole time?

Basically, for the past 4 years Twitter has been exposing Trump as a madman by *not* censoring him. His tweets inspire lunatics and repulse normal people who might otherwise lean republican. The result is losing the house, losing the senate and losing the presidency. Trump has given us the undying love of the racists who are worth maybe 30% of the vote and made us radioactive to everyone else. The problem isn't that people aren't hearing his message. The problem is the message sucks. That's not Jack's fault.

This goes back to the whole "orange man bad" thing making light of Trump's character problems. Sure I like the tax cut, but that's not all I want from a president. I also want him to sell conservative politics and bring more people to the right side so we can keep moving forward in the future. He has been a total failure in that regard. He's turned the republican party into something you can't rationally vote for if you don't want a president for life.
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.
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 14913
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by jlv »

Question for you guys. This kind of got lost in the whole insurrection thing, but if republicans had the majority in both the house and senate and rejected the actual vote counts and just gave Trump the presidency, would you have been happy about that?
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.
m121c
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

jlv wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:42 am What you guys are imagining is Neil Gorsuch fairly applying Twitter's TOS for them. What you'll get is Lois Lerner deleting conservatives by keyword search not just on Twitter but on independent conservative sites as well.
You are right, it should not be in the governments power to enforce Twitters TOS fairly. However, I think what I am seeing as a good solution is to revoke their protections and allow the people to demand they apply it equally. Twitter has nothing to worry about if they just stick to their "platforms" core message, outline a detailed TOS, and enforce it fairly. There will be no reason for them to lose that protection. However, I feel if they keep acting more like a publisher with the message of a platform, and not just a platform, they should be held liable like a publisher would. Although Trump is at the center, this is not just Trump being censored. Many conservative publications and media sources that are not loony Trumpers have been fighting this since 2016.

If you think social media is really just a website like any other with no real need to keep a close eye on.. I would recommend the documentary on Netflix about it.
jlv wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:42 am Our problem as republicans right now is the whole party is built around pretending Trump's lies are true. We have a situation where multiple republicans spread lies that resulted in an unprecedented deadly attack on congress and none of them are being held accountable by the party. The only republicans who are being threatened with censure are Cindy McCain and Liz Cheney, both for showing disloyalty to Trump by doing things that are ethically right. We have guys like Trump, Hawley and Cruz (I hate to say it about Cruz but it's true) who egged on an attempted mass murder and we're going to punish McCain and Cheney instead. This is total madness and giving Trump a bigger platform only makes things worse. Twitter actually did us a favor by banning him. Can you imagine if he had been tweeting this whole time?

Basically, for the past 4 years Twitter has been exposing Trump as a madman by *not* censoring him. His tweets inspire lunatics and repulse normal people who might otherwise lean republican. The result is losing the house, losing the senate and losing the presidency. Trump has given us the undying love of the racists who are worth maybe 30% of the vote and made us radioactive to everyone else. The problem isn't that people aren't hearing his message. The problem is the message sucks. That's not Jack's fault.

This goes back to the whole "orange man bad" thing making light of Trump's character problems. Sure I like the tax cut, but that's not all I want from a president. I also want him to sell conservative politics and bring more people to the right side so we can keep moving forward in the future. He has been a total failure in that regard. He's turned the republican party into something you can't rationally vote for if you don't want a president for life.
The main way people were able to see Trump's character problem was through his Twitter. You censor that... you think he has a second term? Maybe Twitter not censoring him has it's upside. Crazy ideas are not crazy in darkness... it is not until we can see them can we acknowledge how crazy they really are. What we are seeing though, is the non-crazy is tactilely being labelled as crazy by the left as a political tool, and the social media giants are on board with silencing it. More ideas the better, that one solid measure of what is radical and what is not, is if you have dissenting ideas to use as a scale of comparison. One voice as truth, aka these social media giants and "news" media (those in which they like anyway), leads to possibility of "hidden" radicalism. I think that's really bad. You would be very mistaken to believe that these mega corporations ever want a conservative president, and that they won't do everything in their power and influence to prevent it.
jlv wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:50 am Question for you guys. This kind of got lost in the whole insurrection thing, but if republicans had the majority in both the house and senate and rejected the actual vote counts and just gave Trump the presidency, would you have been happy about that?
Absolutely not. I said it from the beginning, my argument on the election was never for Trump to overturn it and win. That's not what I wanted, nor what even the Republican's like Cruz wanted, even though that is the narrative. I honestly believe we have no real I idea where the truth is. I think an independent and thorough investigation was necessary and the let the cards fall where they may. Too late.
Post Reply