Log in

View Full Version : Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8

Eric Stoner
01-27-2021, 09:04 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree.

miss.a.p1600
01-27-2021, 10:31 AM
I TOLD YOU SO. Now Twitter is suspending accounts of anyone who questions the 2020 election results. Nothing more. No advocacy of violence or resistance in any way , shape or form. It would be easier to take if they suspended Brennan's account or Schiff's account or McCabe's account or anyone else who pushed the Russia , Russia , Russia collusion hoax.

As they should.

It was already proven there was no mass voter fraud.

Mfs ain’t got time for nut jobs peddling conspiracies n lies to the masses. The voter fraud lie was what trump used to manipulate his fan base which angered them enough to show up n cause mass destruction.

If the Russian collision or whatever caused people to go and commit acts of violence against government then those people pushing that should be banned. But from what I understand this wasn’t the case.

The average Joe Blow can get away with lying to his or her 200 followers but leaders in high standing are held to greater standards

Again. When you sign on to any platform, you agree to their TOS, whether or not it seems fair.

Eric Stoner
01-27-2021, 11:50 AM
I agree with you that there is a lot of factually delinquent junk floating around out there. Including that there was massive voter fraud ; the election was stolen etc. However rather than shut people up I think it is best to respond with more and better speech. Disclaimers ; warnings ; notes to readers etc. There are a lot of ways to deal with MOST of this stuff without resort to Cancel Culture.

IMO we are seeing a new McCarthyism including blacklisting people that some don't like or agree with. Is that REALLY what we want ? One of many reasons I was so angry and sickened by the assault on the Capitol was because I KNEW that the Dems and Libs would use it as an excuse to try and stifle dissent. That they would use it to try and impose their views and suppress opposing views. Before you jump on me please note that I am parroting exactly what has been said by Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Taibbi, Megan Murphy and Alan Dershowitz among others who have actually bothered to stop and THINK about the implications. As I have posted , it amazes me that free thinkers on this board who normally are all in favor of free speech are willing to just shrug and go along with this kind of censorship. When the left said: "Start your own Twitter " we got Parler. Until Amazon et al quashed it. Do some of you really want Jeff Bezos controlling political fora in this country ? He already has the Washington Post. Isn't that enough ? For now the left has control over the leading fora for political speech. There is already a serious backlash building that may not end well. I would hate to see it.

dpacrkk
01-27-2021, 12:39 PM
I agree with you that there is a lot of factually delinquent junk floating around out there. Including that there was massive voter fraud ; the election was stolen etc. However rather than shut people up I think it is best to respond with more and better speech. Disclaimers ; warnings ; notes to readers etc.

To reiterate:


Amend it to more factual speech/content and I could probably agree. Having more outright lies to incense people doesn't seem all that valuable to me.

and:


This only works in an ideal world. There already are fact checking resources; do you think the median American uses them? Hell no! People wouldn't have fallen for five years of baseless claims and outright lies if this was the case. There already are annotations on content that is disputed or questionable. And to certain people, those messages noting these claims get ignored and are seen as "the lamestream media covering up the truth!"


There are a lot of ways to deal with MOST of this stuff without resort to Cancel Culture...IMO we are seeing a new McCarthyism... Do some of you really want Jeff Bezos controlling political fora in this country ? He already has the Washington Post. Isn't that enough ? For now the left has control over the leading fora for political speech. There is already a serious backlash building that may not end well. I would hate to see it.

This isn't close to either cancel culture nor McCarthyism. If anything, these people get more support from their circles at the cost of alienating people who never supported them in the first place. It's a literal net gain.

About controlling political fora, it's not; it's hindering misinformation which happens to be political. Words matter. Lies matter. Conclusions based on lies are faulty. Taking actions and inciting others to take actions based on faulty conclusions should have serious consequences. It's not bad to end this garbage; and it should have started when "fake news" and "alternative facts" entered the lexicon and changed America for the worse.


When the left said: "Start your own Twitter " we got Parler. Until Amazon et al quashed it.

Parler got deplatformed, not "quashed." There's a huge difference: it still has its code base, and its creators can feel free to create their own service fabric, infrastructure, and digital distribution platform or go use Epik or AliCloud. But given how bad Parler's SysOps and InfoSec were, how quickly and easily people scraped the data, it doesn't seem like their Engineering team is the strongest.

miss.a.p1600
01-27-2021, 12:54 PM
I agree with you that there is a lot of factually delinquent junk floating around out there. Including that there was massive voter fraud ; the election was stolen etc. However rather than shut people up I think it is best to respond with more and better speech. Disclaimers ; warnings ; notes to readers etc. There are a lot of ways to deal with MOST of this stuff without resort to Cancel Culture.

IMO we are seeing a new McCarthyism including blacklisting people that some don't like or agree with. Is that REALLY what we want ? One of many reasons I was so angry and sickened by the assault on the Capitol was because I KNEW that the Dems and Libs would use it as an excuse to try and stifle dissent. That they would use it to try and impose their views and suppress opposing views. Before you jump on me please note that I am parroting exactly what has been said by Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Taibbi, Megan Murphy and Alan Dershowitz among others who have actually bothered to stop and THINK about the implications. As I have posted , it amazes me that free thinkers on this board who normally are all in favor of free speech are willing to just shrug and go along with this kind of censorship. When the left said: "Start your own Twitter " we got Parler. Until Amazon et al quashed it. Do some of you really want Jeff Bezos controlling political fora in this country ? He already has the Washington Post. Isn't that enough ? For now the left has control over the leading fora for political speech. There is already a serious backlash building that may not end well. I would hate to see it.

I could be wrong but I think Trump was given A LOT of leeway and so wasn’t necessarily subjected to cancel culture so to speak.

For a president he was out here mocking disabled people, calling women pigs who “bleed from...everywhere, calling people rapists, saying certain countries were shitholes, calling his mistress a “horse face”, mocking John McCain (a decent Republican), and the list goes on.... plus feeding blatant lies to the masses for profit.

Twitter and others finally grew a backbone and got rid of him after years of his reckless rhetoric

They put warnings on his content but that didn’t stop the ignorant people from spreading his lies because he’s THE President. Those dumb people will believe whatever lies he tells over twitters “biased” fact checking label

I do think that Twitter could have prevent it from being shared as an absolute last resort before blocking him.

The crazy thing is blocking him from social media probably did the opposite (reverse psychology) where his nut job followers had more sympathy for him AND more curiosity to his seek out his nutty messages.

I’ll admit I was glad to see him go but then I was like “where’s this mf now?” .... and went to see what deranged messages he was posting on Parler

Raziel
01-27-2021, 01:00 PM
I do think that Twitter could have prevent it from being shared as an absolute last resort before blocking him.

And at the last possible second! The guy had like two weeks in office left when they finally banned him.


We'll have to agree to disagree.

About what? 90 cases tossed out of court because Trumps lawyers couldn't conjure up any EVIDENCE. Biden won!

SnuffleUffleGrass
01-27-2021, 01:03 PM
To answer OP's question about censorship on Internet platforms- the answer from our tech overlords is- "Tough Sh*t".....................


The Wild West days of the Internet are long over. The Internet is now a commercial marketplace.

Facebook itself was started first as a (almost) joke & then monetized to become a trend among college aged young adults.

Ask any 15 year old with a Smartphone- Facebook is now passe. It's where you see targeted ads and your parent's vacation photos.

There's a great documentary about social media called "The Social Dilemma" - the tech industry found a way to worm itself into every aspect of life and we are now seeing the long term consequences of that.

As for censorship, under the law you might have the right to scream your head off about anything you want on any random street in your nation.......

But Internet platforms are not obligated to host your opinions, thoughts or demands.

miss.a.p1600
01-27-2021, 02:15 PM
I don’t understand completely bc He’s not censored from speaking on EVERY platform he’s simply banned from speaking on those handful of platform. Not like there are other avenues for him to peddle his misinformation so why wouldn’t he just use the platforms that accept him? Fox News? Secrets and Lies Radio? Etc.

Him and his loyal administration followers are just too dumb to figure out other avenues.

Trump is a prime example that freedom of speech comes WITH consequences (which extremists n narcissists seem to lack understanding of). Yes you can say wtf you want to say but if you piss enough people off you start to burn too many bridges

miss.a.p1600
01-27-2021, 02:20 PM
And at the last possible second! The guy had like two weeks in office left when they finally banned him.



About what? 90 cases tossed out of court because Trumps lawyers couldn't conjure up any EVIDENCE. Biden won!

I think people waited till the last minute cause they were scared of him.

Try holding the most powerful man in the US accountable n what happens? You could end up losing it all, or worse.

Now the time comes where he loses some of that immunity and now people can hold him accountable for his lies n manipulations

Djoser
01-27-2021, 03:43 PM
Now the time comes where he loses some of that immunity and now people can hold him accountable for his lies n manipulations

About fucking time. ;D

eagle2
01-27-2021, 05:12 PM
I agree with you that there is a lot of factually delinquent junk floating around out there. Including that there was massive voter fraud ; the election was stolen etc. However rather than shut people up I think it is best to respond with more and better speech. Disclaimers ; warnings ; notes to readers etc. There are a lot of ways to deal with MOST of this stuff without resort to Cancel Culture.


Responding with "more and better speech" accomplishes nothing with people who refuse to accept facts they don't like, and who are going to accept whatever their leader tells them, without question. There is probably no evidence or speech that could convince 25 - 30 percent of Americans that the election wasn't stolen.

Please stop with the "cancel culture". Individuals and businesses have the right to not associate with people, if they find that those people are openly spreading lies that lead to violence against others. Like it or not, words have consequences, especially when those words lead to violence and people getting killed.



IMO we are seeing a new McCarthyism including blacklisting people that some don't like or agree with. Is that REALLY what we want ? One of many reasons I was so angry and sickened by the assault on the Capitol was because I KNEW that the Dems and Libs would use it as an excuse to try and stifle dissent. That they would use it to try and impose their views and suppress opposing views. Before you jump on me please note that I am parroting exactly what has been said by Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Taibbi, Megan Murphy and Alan Dershowitz among others who have actually bothered to stop and THINK about the implications. As I have posted , it amazes me that free thinkers on this board who normally are all in favor of free speech are willing to just shrug and go along with this kind of censorship. When the left said: "Start your own Twitter " we got Parler. Until Amazon et al quashed it. Do some of you really want Jeff Bezos controlling political fora in this country ? He already has the Washington Post. Isn't that enough ? For now the left has control over the leading fora for political speech. There is already a serious backlash building that may not end well. I would hate to see it.

It's not McCarthyism. McCarthyism was the government targeting people and accusing them of secretly being communists, and in many cases, without evidence or respecting the basic rights of those people. In this case, people and businesses are choosing to not associate with individuals who are openly telling lies with the attempt to destabilize our democracy and incite violence. There is nothing being lost when businesses choose not to let those people use their platforms to spread those lies. Bezos doesn't control anything. Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on internet servers, and there is no reason why Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook shouldn't be allowed to deny people the use of their platforms, if those people are intent on spreading lies and inciting violence. I'm sure that Trump being banned from social media was a major reason why we haven't seen any politically motivated violence over the past 3 weeks.

Eric Stoner
01-28-2021, 08:54 AM
Eagle , you have NOT been paying attention and are NOT listening to what various people in Congress and the Biden Administration are saying. They are apparently serious in wanting to punish people for disagreeing with them and having other ideas. We were supposed to get "UNITY " under Biden ; he was supposed to be the POTUS of people who did NOT vote for him. Where is it ? Name one thing Biden or the Dems have done to try and promote reconciliation.

It's very easy to say : " We are not censoring speech. We are just cleaning up and clearing out lies and misinformation. "
And ironically some of you may be right . It may in fact generate MORE loopy conspiracy theories ; it has already generated MORE sympathy for Trump. How many times do I have to post that Trump is a bombastic buffoon ? Worse yet, he is selfish and irresponsible. And yet , a LOT of people , especially in the middle class think ( right, wrong , fair or unfair ) that it was Trump and Trump alone who looked after them . Who fought for them. Who put America first.

If it were just Trump and the QAnon crazies ( and those people are DERANGED ) who are being silenced I would agree with most of you. Why was it perfectly fine for the Russia, Russia, Russia Conspiracy hoax to be given fair play and an open hearing while anyone who questions the election result gets banned from Twitter ?

If it were just private entities like Twitter and Facebook doing the censoring I think it would be unhealthy but probably tolerable. But it's NOT. Not when we have people in the government wanting to punish their enemies for Speech. Not actions. Not conspiring to break the law. Just speech. And when ( not if, WHEN ) they try and formulate legislation to do just that , will you support them ? Just how far are some of you willing to go with " Free speech for me but not for thee " ?

eagle2
01-28-2021, 07:56 PM
Eagle , you have NOT been paying attention and are NOT listening to what various people in Congress and the Biden Administration are saying. They are apparently serious in wanting to punish people for disagreeing with them and having other ideas. We were supposed to get "UNITY " under Biden ; he was supposed to be the POTUS of people who did NOT vote for him. Where is it ? Name one thing Biden or the Dems have done to try and promote reconciliation.


Trump supporters attacked the Capitol and tried to violently overthrow our government, killing five people in the process. Over 100 Republicans in Congress refused to accept the results of the Presidential Election. You think Biden and the Dems are the ones who need to try and promote reconciliation?

What we (the American People) want, is to punish those who were responsible for inciting or taking part in violence against our government, and to prevent it from happening again. Who is trying to punish anyone for for disagreeing with them and having other ideas?



It's very easy to say : " We are not censoring speech. We are just cleaning up and clearing out lies and misinformation. "
And ironically some of you may be right . It may in fact generate MORE loopy conspiracy theories ; it has already generated MORE sympathy for Trump. How many times do I have to post that Trump is a bombastic buffoon ? Worse yet, he is selfish and irresponsible. And yet , a LOT of people , especially in the middle class think ( right, wrong , fair or unfair ) that it was Trump and Trump alone who looked after them . Who fought for them. Who put America first.

If it were just Trump and the QAnon crazies ( and those people are DERANGED ) who are being silenced I would agree with most of you. Why was it perfectly fine for the Russia, Russia, Russia Conspiracy hoax to be given fair play and an open hearing while anyone who questions the election result gets banned from Twitter ?


There wasn't a "Russia Conspiracy hoax". Our intelligence agencies have determined with absolute certainty, that Russian Intelligence hacked Clinton's emails.



If it were just private entities like Twitter and Facebook doing the censoring I think it would be unhealthy but probably tolerable. But it's NOT. Not when we have people in the government wanting to punish their enemies for Speech. Not actions. Not conspiring to break the law. Just speech. And when ( not if, WHEN ) they try and formulate legislation to do just that , will you support them ? Just how far are some of you willing to go with " Free speech for me but not for thee " ?

Please specify who in government wants to punish "enemies" for speech?

Eric Stoner
01-29-2021, 09:26 AM
Trump supporters attacked the Capitol and tried to violently overthrow our government, killing five people in the process. Over 100 Republicans in Congress refused to accept the results of the Presidential Election. You think Biden and the Dems are the ones who need to try and promote reconciliation?

What we (the American People) want, is to punish those who were responsible for inciting or taking part in violence against our government, and to prevent it from happening again. Who is trying to punish anyone for for disagreeing with them and having other ideas?



There wasn't a "Russia Conspiracy hoax". Our intelligence agencies have determined with absolute certainty, that Russian Intelligence hacked Clinton's emails.



Please specify who in government wants to punish "enemies" for speech?

We KNOW that . We all saw it on T.V. I join with everyone else in hoping they get the book thrown at them. How refreshing it will be to see rioters actually punished.

The laws on the books are adequate to deal with the rioters and those who conspired to create the riot. More and more evidence is coming out that the riot was pre-planned. I am talking about proposals to INCREASE spying and surveillance on the American people; on advocacy of "deprogramming" and "reeducation" of Trump supporters.

There most certainly was a hoax involving Trump. He did not have anything to do with Russia's activities before and during the 2016 Election. A LOT of evidence is coming out showing that the DOJ and FBI lied to get FISA warrants ; that they knew the Steele dossier was a crock of shit etc.

As for punishing enemies we can start with the bogus Impeachment Part II. Roberts wants no part of it. You cannot impeach a private citizen. Trump didn't plan the riot. It started while he was still speaking over a mile away. Then there is the effort to remove Senators Cruz and Hawley for simply asking for an audit of the votes. And the 100 or so congresspersons who voted for not certifying were within their rights to do so. There were similar type efforts in 1968 ; 2000 and 2016. Equally futile btw. You and I can agree that it was all ill advised. Or not. I don't want to speak for you.

Just the tone of your post shows that you think reconciliation ought to be a one way street and that only Republicans ought to do mea culpas. Name one, just one Republican Congressperson or Senator who was even slightly supportive of the Capitol riot ? I don't have the room or the time to list all the Dems who have spoken approvingly of Anti-Fa and BLM and the violence at THEIR riots ... ooops I mean protests ... or demonstrations. Just what is the PC term for what they have been doing ?

There is also a movement afoot to silence OAN ; Newsmax and Fox News. Inter alia they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Just read what people like AOC are saying and it is clear that they want to trim the First Amendment for those they don't agree with. And ONLY for them.
I am not alone in my worries and concerns. Several prominent Libs. like Alan Dershowitz and Bill Maher are equally concerned. If only Nat Hentoff were still alive to explain it all for you.

dpacrkk
01-29-2021, 10:48 AM
Name one, just one Republican Congressperson or Senator who was even slightly supportive of the Capitol riot ?

Josh Hawley (image (https://imgur.com/Elywe8v))

I'm anticipating that you'll tell us something (for lack of a better word) stupid to explain away this one like "He was just showing the protesters how he stretches!" But this is why your aforementioned "Disclaimers ; warnings ; notes to readers etc" don't work. This is right in your face and you deny its existence or rationalize it.

Eric Stoner
01-29-2021, 10:54 AM
Your photo is supposed to show what ? Proving what ? That photo was taken HOURS before the riot.

eagle2
01-29-2021, 11:12 AM
We KNOW that . We all saw it on T.V. I join with everyone else in hoping they get the book thrown at them. How refreshing it will be to see rioters actually punished.

The laws on the books are adequate to deal with the rioters and those who conspired to create the riot. More and more evidence is coming out that the riot was pre-planned. I am talking about proposals to INCREASE spying and surveillance on the American people; on advocacy of "deprogramming" and "reeducation" of Trump supporters.

There most certainly was a hoax involving Trump. He did have anything to do with Russia's activities before and during the 2016 Election. A LOT of vidence is coming out showing that the DOJ and FBI lied to get FISA warrants ; that they knew the Steele dossier was a crock of shit etc.


No there isn't. You're listening to Rush Limbaugh too much. There was one isolated case of an FBI lawyer changing an email. Other than that, nothing illegal was found over the 3 years of investigations. The investigation was started when our intelligence agencies were informed that a member of Trump's campaign staff told the Australian ambassador that Clinton's emails were hacked, before this became public. How did he know this?

There never would have been a riot if Trump hadn't been repeating the lie that the election was stolen for the previous two months.




As for punishing enemies we can start with the bogus Impeachment Part II. Roberts wants no part of it. You cannot impeach a private citizen. Trump didn't plan the riot. It started while he was still speaking over a mile away. Then there is the effort to remove Senators Cruz and Hawley for simply asking for an audit of the votes. And the 100 or so congresspersons who voted for not certifying were within their rights to do so. There were similar type efforts in 1968 ; 2000 and 2016. Equally futile btw. You and I can agree that it was all ill advised. Or not. I don't want to speak for you.


No, they weren't. There was no basis for it. They knew Biden won the election. They were both trying to delegitimize the election, and if possible, overturn it. If they were able to delay certification past Jan. 20, then the President would be determined by a House vote, which Trump would have won, since it goes by state, and not representative. There is video of the riot, showing one of the rioters saying, "This is what Cruz would want."

Trump didn't just start inciting violence at his Jan. 6 speech. He'd been doing it for the past two months, with his repeated lies about the election being stolen. According to people in the White House, Trump was thrilled to see the rioting, and couldn't understand understand why others weren't. He refused to even make a statement condemning the violence for hours, and when he did, he praised the rioters, calling them "special" and telling them he "loves them". When Congressmen were begging for the National Guard to be called up, it was delayed for more than an hour.



Just the tone of your post shows that you think reconciliation ought to be a one way street and that only Republicans ought to do mea culpas. Name one, just one Republican Congressperson or Senator who was even slightly supportive of the Capitol riot ? I don't have the room or the time to list all the Dems who have spoken approvingly of Anti-Fa and BLM and the violence at THEIR riots ... ooops I mean protests ... or demonstrations. Just what is the PC term for what they have been doing ?


Did you not see the Congressmen speaking, who went before Trump at his hate rally? Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene liked a post calling for someone to put a bullet in Pelosi's head. There weren't any Democratic members of Congress condoning violence at the summer protests, and the protesters were protesting for legitimate reasons. There is no comparison between the two. Nobody at the protest over the summer was targeting Republican members of Congress, or were intent on murdering them.

Again, you listen to Rush Limbaugh too much.



There is also a movement afoot to silence OAN ; Newsmax and Fox News. Inter alia they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Just read what people like AOC are saying and it is clear that they want to trim the First Amendment for those they don't agree with. And ONLY for them.
I am not alone in my worries and concerns. Several prominent Libs. like Alan Dershowitz and Bill Maher are equally concerned. If only Nat Hentoff were still alive to explain it all for you.

No they don't. Dershowitz isn't a lib. He's a crackpot who been one of Trump's most rabid defenders. Nobody wants to trim the 1st Amendment. People are concerned about more violence and attempts to undermine our democracy, and based on what's been going on over the past 3 months, there is good reason to be.

dpacrkk
01-29-2021, 11:19 AM
Your photo is supposed to show what ? Proving what ? That photo was taken HOURS before the riot.

First, the photographer stated the photo was taken at 12:35 PM, the protesters broke through the barriers around 1:00 PM, the Capitol Police commander declared it a riot at 1:50 PM, and just after 2 PM the mob breached the Capitol. This isn't "HOURS" or even "hours."

Second, is that really what you're going with? If so, it's just a repeat of the cycle:

1. You tell us something to the effect of "Trump told them to go peacefully!"
2. Any one of multiple people tell you something to the effect of "That was only after being bombarded with messaging for hours about stolen elections, the need to fight, and so on. This means the message to go peacefully was just completely hollow."
3. You tell us you agree with #2.
4. Go to step 1 (which shows you obviously don't agree but are trying to have it both ways of "he's not responsible!" and "he is responsible!").

I have to agree with kamiliam: "you have proven that you have no intention of a productive debate."

Eric Stoner
01-29-2021, 12:30 PM
No there isn't. You're listening to Rush Limbaugh too much. There was one isolated case of an FBI lawyer changing an email. Other than that, nothing illegal was found over the 3 years of investigations. The investigation was started when our intelligence agencies were informed that a member of Trump's campaign staff told the Australian ambassador that Clinton's emails were hacked, before this became public. How did he know this?

There never would have been a riot if Trump hadn't been repeating the lie that the election was stolen for the previous two months.




No, they weren't. There was no basis for it. They knew Biden won the election. They were both trying to delegitimize the election, and if possible, overturn it. If they were able to delay certification past Jan. 20, then the President would be determined by a House vote, which Trump would have won, since it goes by state, and not representative. There is video of the riot, showing one of the rioters saying, "This is what Cruz would want."

Trump didn't just start inciting violence at his Jan. 6 speech. He'd been doing it for the past two months, with his repeated lies about the election being stolen. According to people in the White House, Trump was thrilled to see the rioting, and couldn't understand understand why others weren't. He refused to even make a statement condemning the violence for hours, and when he did, he praised the rioters, calling them "special" and telling them he "loves them". When Congressmen were begging for the National Guard to be called up, it was delayed for more than an hour.



Did you not see the Congressmen speaking, who went before Trump at his hate rally? Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene liked a post calling for someone to put a bullet in Pelosi's head. There weren't any Democratic members of Congress condoning violence at the summer protests, and the protesters were protesting for legitimate reasons. There is no comparison between the two. Nobody at the protest over the summer was targeting Republican members of Congress, or were intent on murdering them.

Again, you listen to Rush Limbaugh too much.



No they don't. Dershowitz isn't a lib. He's a crackpot who been one of Trump's most rabid defenders. Nobody wants to trim the 1st Amendment. People are concerned about more violence and attempts to undermine our democracy, and based on what's been going on over the past 3 months, there is good reason to be.

Put your feet up and apply a cold compress. You are really taking this far too seriously. Were you sweating out whether there would be violent assaults on various state capitals as was predicted by the folks YOU like to listen to . We AGREE that Trump bears responsibility for what happened. Afaic , fuck Trump ! But he's out. No longer the POTUS. How many times do I have to post that HE LOST. The Election was NOT stolen. We can agree that Cruz and Hawley had no legit basis for asking for an audit. That's all they did and it wasn't like it never happened before. We had similar actions in 1968 ; 2000 and 2016. Were you as upset THEN as you are now ? Remember all the Dems who refused to acknowledge Trump as a legit President ? Who said "he's not my President " ?

I have posted that Trump smeared himself with his own feces. What did you think I meant ? He disgraced himself. His lack of good grace and inability to accept reality had harmful consequences. I hold him DIRECTLY responsible for the nitwits at his January 6 rally. I've posted THAT before. He had NO legitimate purpose for such a rally. I don't know why he did it. Ask him. I think he is also responsible for creating the conditions and mindset that encouraged the riot . I've posted that before. Forgive me for going so slowly but I think maybe you need the help.

The Constitution is VERY clear. Impeachment is solely designed to remove a sitting President. Period. Trump is a private citizen. Any attempt now to try and make him ineligible to run again will fail. And in a perverse way it will help Trump. In fact it is already doing so by generating sympathy for him.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is mentally ill imo. She no more represents the Republican Party or even most Republicans in Congress than AOC represents all Dems. Or Omar. Or Tlaib. Or the nitwit Hank Johnson who thought too many troops on Guam would cause it to tip over .

Since Trump has left office the only violence we have seen is from BLM and AntiFa.

Alan Dershowitz is a former Harvard Law School professor of Constitutional Law. He was highly critical of Trump's impeachment on Constitutional grounds.
So were a LOT of other Constitutional Law professors.

Again, you have very selective hearing when it comes to Dems condoning violence. What was Maxine Waters condoning and advocating when she told a crowd to get in the face and push against Trump Administration officials ? How would you like your meal disturbed and your life threatened by people who disagree with you ? What were Harris and others condoning with their Bail Fund for BLM and AntiFa rioters ? Another question you have been repeatedly asked but refuse to answer : Just how much violence and property destruction do YOU ( yeah you EAGLE ) think is acceptable ? Why does it matter that you agree with the grievances and goals of the violent ?

As far as undermining democracy = more hysteria. Try a martini and maybe some deep breathing. Watch the news ; read a newspaper and remind yourself : Joe is now the POTUS. Trump is out of office.

Eric Stoner
01-29-2021, 12:36 PM
First, the photographer stated the photo was taken at 12:35 PM, the protesters broke through the barriers around 1:00 PM, the Capitol Police commander declared it a riot at 1:50 PM, and just after 2 PM the mob breached the Capitol. This isn't "HOURS" or even "hours."

Second, is that really what you're going with? If so, it's just a repeat of the cycle:

1. You tell us something to the effect of "Trump told them to go peacefully!"
2. Any one of multiple people tell you something to the effect of "That was only after being bombarded with messaging for hours about stolen elections, the need to fight, and so on. This means the message to go peacefully was just completely hollow."
3. You tell us you agree with #2.
4. Go to step 1 (which shows you obviously don't agree but are trying to have it both ways of "he's not responsible!" and "he is responsible!").

I have to agree with kamiliam: "you have proven that you have no intention of a productive debate."

WHO are we talking about ? Trump ? I've posted many times that he WAS responsible. His speech to his supporters was pathetic. His statement to the rioters defied reality and was even more pathetic. His statement the day AFTER the riot was a joke. Hawley ? When did he tell anyone to storm the Capitol ? I AGREE that showing support ; condoning or agreeing with the protesters was WRONG. There was no useful or legitimate purpose to be served by such a demonstration. Those who suspected it would turn violent were not listened to. The FBI is investigating including claims that some INSIDE the government may have lent aid and assistance to the rioters. GOOD ! If there in fact were any such people I hope they are indicted and prosecuted. What more do you want ?

You talk about responsibility. Responsibility for WHAT ? For the rally ? Yes, Trump is responsible. 100 %. For the riot ? Morally Somewhat. Criminally ? NO. there is no causal connection between Trump's speech and the attack on the Capitol. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that Trump KNEW what was being planned While he didn't do anything directly to cause or encourage it he certainly didn't do anything to prevent anything like it and it wouldn't shock me if he was secretly happy that it happened. He is that bad of a guy afaic .

dpacrkk
01-29-2021, 01:14 PM
WHO are we talking about ? Trump ? I've posted many times that he WAS responsible. Hawley ? When did he tell anyone to storm the Capitol ? I AGREE that showing support ; condoning or agreeing with the protesters was WRONG. There was no useful or legitimate purpose to be served by such a demonstration. Those who suspected it would turn violent were not listened to. The FBI is investigating including claims that some INSIDE the government may have lent aid and assistance to the rioters. GOOD ! If there in fact were any such people I hope they are indicted and prosecuted. What more do you want ?

You challenged us to "Name one, just one Republican Congressperson or Senator who was even slightly supportive of the Capitol riot ?" Hawley was showing his support (the raised fist is a symbol of unity with and/or support of their cause). Even if we forget that the riot happened fewer than 30 minutes later (not "HOURS" as you claimed, but now seem to gloss over having claimed), this is evidence of said support, which is all you demanded. I bring up your repeated statements about Trump to show you that this situation is an analog... Are you trying to tell us people can't guess how their displays of support influence radicalized crowds fewer than 30 minutes later?


You talk about responsibility.

I took about 15 seconds to search for instances of "respons." The only time I typed that was to paraphrase your claims. So no, I do not "talk about responsibility." You are addressing a point that I never made nor attempted to make. This is what happens in a world of "we need more speech" instead of "we need more factual speech/content."

PhatGirlDynomite!!!
01-31-2021, 10:07 AM
Have y'all heard about Birdwatch?


Introducing Birdwatch, a community-based approach to misinformation By Keith Coleman (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-birdwatch-a-community-based-approach-to-misinformation.html)


People come to Twitter to stay informed, and they want credible information to help them do so. We apply labels and add context to Tweets, but we don't want to limit efforts to circumstances where something breaks our rules or receives widespread public attention. We also want to broaden the range of voices that are part of tackling this problem, and we believe a community-driven approach can help. That’s why today we’re introducing Birdwatch, a pilot in the US of a new community-driven approach to help address misleading information on Twitter.

Here’s how it works

Birdwatch allows people to identify information in Tweets they believe is misleading and write notes that provide informative context. We believe this approach has the potential to respond quickly when misleading information spreads, adding context that people trust and find valuable. Eventually we aim to make notes visible directly on Tweets for the global Twitter audience, when there is consensus from a broad and diverse set of contributors.

In this first phase of the pilot, notes will only be visible on a separate Birdwatch site. On this site, pilot participants can also rate the helpfulness of notes added by other contributors. These notes are being intentionally kept separate from Twitter for now, while we build Birdwatch and gain confidence that it produces context people find helpful and appropriate. Additionally, notes will not have an effect on the way people see Tweets or our system recommendations.


More info about Birdwatch:

www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1255552

Twitter unveiled a feature Monday meant to bolster its efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation by tapping users in a fashion similar to Wikipedia to flag potentially misleading tweets.

The new system allows users to discuss and provide context to tweets they believe are misleading or false. The project, titled Birdwatch, is a standalone section of Twitter that will at first only be available to a small set of users, largely on a first-come, first-served basis. Priority will not be provided to high-profile people or traditional fact-checkers, but users will have to use an account tied to a real phone number and email address.

eagle2
01-31-2021, 10:12 PM
Put your feet up and apply a cold compress. You are really taking this far too seriously. Were you sweating out whether there would be violent assaults on various state capitals as was predicted by the folks YOU like to listen to . We AGRFEE that Trump bears responsibility for what happened. Afaic , fuck Trump ! But he's out. No longer the POTUS. How many times do I have to post that HE LOST. The Election was NOT stolen. We can agree that Cruz and Hawley had no legit basis for asking for an audit. That's all they did and it wasn't like it never happened before. We had similar actions in 1968 ; 2000 and 2016. Were you as upset THEN as you are now ? Remember all the Dems who refused to acknowledge Trump as a legit President ? Who said "he's not my President " ?


You're taking this simplistic look that the only thing that matters is that Biden took office on Jan. 20, and that we shouldn't worry about any laws that were broken, the people who were killed, or the possibility that this could happen again. I'm very concerned about Trump or some other right-wing extremists trying to do this again, and next time they'll be better prepared. No Democrat made any illegal effort to prevent Trump from taking office. I never considered him my president either, but I never disputed he was the legal winner of the 2016 election. For the most part, Trump was the president of White Conservative Christians only. He had little concern for anyone else, and his words and actions were often detrimental to those who weren't. You'll probably disagree, since you weren't negatively affected by him, but most people of color don't.



I have posted that Trump smeared himself with his own feces. What did you think I meant ? He disgraced himself. His lack of good grace and inability tio accept reality had harmful consequences. I hold him DIRECTLY responsible for the nitwits at his January 6 rally. I've posted THAT before. He had NO legitimate purpose for such a rally. I don't know why he did it. Ask him. I think he is also responsible for creating the conditions and mindset that encouraged the riot . I've posted that before. Forgive me for going so slowly but I think maybe you need the help.


I never disputed that you condemned Trump for his actions in disputing the election outcome, but you don't seem to want him to pay any consequences for it.



The Constitution is VERY clear. Impeachment is solely designed to remove a sitting President. Period. Trump is a private citizen. Any attempt now to try and make him ineligible to run again will fail. And in a perverse way it will help Trump. In fact it is already doing so by generating sympathy for him.


No it isn't. There have been two cases where someone was impeached after leaving office, including one in 1798, when many of the people who wrote The Constitution were still alive. If you're not allowed to impeach someone after he leaves office, what's to prevent any president from committing impeachable offenses during his last month in office?



Marjorie Taylor Greene is mentally ill imo. She no more represents the Republican Party or even most Republicans in Congress than AOC represents all Dems. Or Omar. Or Tlaib. Or the nitwit Hank Johnson who thought too many troops on Guam would cause it tip over .


I have yet to see any of her Republican colleagues take any action against her. As far as I know, neither AOC, Omar, or Tlaib ever liked any post calling for one of their colleagues to get a bullet in his or her brain, or refused to go through a metal detector because they wanted to carry a gun into the cha



Since Trump hass left office the only violence we have seen is from BLM and AntiFa.


Thanks to him being banned from social media.



Alan Dershowitz is a former Harvard Law School professor of Constitutional Law. He was highly critical of Trump's impeachment on Constitutional grounds.
So were a LOT of other Constitutional Law professors.


Dershowitz is just another Trump sycophant. There's no question that Trump broke the law. There was even a specific law written to prohibit what he did.



Again, you have very selective hearing when it comes to Dems condoning violence. What was Maxine Waters condoning and advocating when she told a crowd to get in the face and push against Trump Administration officials. How would you like your meal disturbed and your life threatened by people who disagree with you ? What were Harris and others condoning with their Bail Fund for BLM and AntiFa rioters ? Another question you have been repeatedly asked but refuse to answer : Just how much violence and property destruction do YOU ( yeah you EAGLE ) think is acceptable ? Why does it matter that you agree with the grievances and goals of the violent ?


You continue have this misconception that Trump was a normal president who just happened to be politically incorrect, and didn't do anything wrong, right up until the election; rather than the lying, racist thug that he actually is. It was Trump's intent as President, to target certain people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, profession, or political views. The people who were enabling him shouldn't have been able to go on with their lives as business as usual, while they were assisting Trump in causing so much harm to others.

I've never advocated violence against anyone, and neither have any Democrats. Protesting against the Trump's enablers is a constitutional right, regardless of where it is done, and I applaud those who did it. You refuse to see Trump for who and what he is, and for the past four years, you have defended everything he's said and done, and insisted he's been doing a great job. You even defended him when he seriously asked about injecting disinfectant to cure covid. You repeatedly denied it, even after being shown a video of him saying it, and then you continued to come up with some explanation for him saying it, other than he's a stupid ignoramus. It was only after he tried to overturn a free and fair election that you even admitted he did anything wrong.



As far as undermining democracy = more hysteria. Try a martini and maybe some deep breathing. Watch the news ; read a newspaper and remind yourself : Joe is now the POTUS. Trump is out of office.

No, it's not hysteria to be seriously concerned about the POTUS trying to illegally steal an election and to incite violence which results in people being killed. If someone robs a bank and shoots several people, and then after realizing he has no chance of getting away with it, returns the money he stole, should we just forget about it and let him go, since the bank got their money back?

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 09:27 AM
You challenged us to "Name one, just one Republican Congressperson or Senator who was even slightly supportive of the Capitol riot ?" Hawley was showing his support (the raised fist is a symbol of unity with and/or support of their cause). Even if we forget that the riot happened fewer than 30 minutes later (not "HOURS" as you claimed, but now seem to gloss over having claimed), this is evidence of said support, which is all you demanded. I bring up your repeated statements about Trump to show you that this situation is an analog... Are you trying to tell us people can't guess how their displays of support influence radicalized crowds fewer than 30 minutes later?



I took about 15 seconds to search for instances of "respons." The only time I typed that was to paraphrase your claims. So no, I do not "talk about responsibility." You are addressing a point that I never made nor attempted to make. This is what happens in a world of "we need more speech" instead of "we need more factual speech/content."

The rally was held over a mile from the Capitol. The riot is looking more and more like it was preplanned by right wing wingnut extremists. Hawley expressed support for the Rally. Dumb but not criminal. He has condemned the riot.

kamiliam
02-03-2021, 10:03 AM
Those “rightwing extremists” have been accepted literally into the fold by the republicans party and hold office. I think you need to take a closer look at the chosen pathway for the party. What is this mile nonsense, like is that super super far? Have you been to DC?

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 10:04 AM
You're taking this simplistic look that the only thing that matters is that Biden took office on Jan. 20, and that we shouldn't worry about any laws that were broken, the people who were killed, or the possibility that this could happen again. I'm very concerned about Trump or some other right-wing extremists trying to do this again, and next time they'll be better prepared. No Democrat made any illegal effort to prevent Trump from taking office. I never considered him my president either, but I never disputed he was the legal winner of the 2016 election. For the most part, Trump was the president of White Conservative Christians only. He had little concern for anyone else, and his words and actions were often detrimental to those who weren't. You'll probably disagree, since you weren't negatively affected by him, but most people of color don't.



I never disputed that you condemned Trump for his actions in disputing the election outcome, but you don't seem to want him to pay any consequences for it.



No it isn't. There have been two cases where someone was impeached after leaving office, including one in 1798, when many of the people who wrote The Constitution were still alive. If you're not allowed to impeach someone after he leaves office, what's to prevent any president from committing impeachable offenses during his last month in office?



I have yet to see any of her Republican colleagues take any action against her. As far as I know, neither AOC, Omar, or Tlaib ever liked any post calling for one of their colleagues to get a bullet in his or her brain, or refused to go through a metal detector because they wanted to carry a gun into the cha



Thanks to him being banned from social media.



Dershowitz is just another Trump sycophant. There's no question that Trump broke the law. There was even a specific law written to prohibit what he did.



You continue have this misconception that Trump was a normal president who just happened to be politically incorrect, and didn't do anything wrong, right up until the election; rather than the lying, racist thug that he actually is. It was Trump's intent as President, to target certain people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, profession, or political views. The people who were enabling him shouldn't have been able to go on with their lives as business as usual, while they were assisting Trump in causing so much harm to others.

I've never advocated violence against anyone, and neither have any Democrats. Protesting against the Trump's enablers is a constitutional right, regardless of where it is done, and I applaud those who did it. You refuse to see Trump for who and what he is, and for the past four years, you have defended everything he's said and done, and insisted he's been doing a great job. You even defended him when he seriously asked about injecting disinfectant to cure covid. You repeatedly denied it, even after being shown a video of him saying it, and then you continued to come up with some explanation for him saying it, other than he's a stupid ignoramus. It was only after he tried to overturn a free and fair election that you even admitted he did anything wrong.



No, it's not hysteria to be seriously concerned about the POTUS trying to illegally steal an election and to incite violence which results in people being killed. If someone robs a bank and shoots several people, and then after realizing he has no chance of getting away with it, returns the money he stole, should we just forget about it and let him go, since the bank got their money back?

Trump is the Anti-Christ ! Just burn him at the stake and be done with it. Round up his followers and put them all in monasteries and nunneries. Um wait a sec. Any transsexuals should go where ?

I could respond to you point by point and express a different view. To what end ? You hate Trump and wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. You think he was the worst President of all time. We get it.

We have different understandings of the Constitution. I believe it means what it says. So does that "crackpot" Dershowitz and so does that fire breathing conservative Jonathan Turley. And dozens of other LIBERAL Law Professors who are less inclined to situational ethics than you.

While we have disagreed about Trump and his policies over the years I have done little else but agree that his POST-Election behavior was disgusting and disgraceful. And there is some danger from right wing crackpots and militia types. The Proud Boys ( Yes, Trump told them to "stand down and stand by " ) Oath Keepers ; Three Percenters ( founded on the lie that only 3 % of Americans fought against the British during the Revolution ) , Boogaloo Bois and worst of all QAnon. They are generally nuts ; some are outright insane and all are potentially dangerous. They need to be watched . If and when they break the law they need to be arrested and prosecuted. The question is has Trump given aid and comfort to these groups ? Has he encouraged them ? Sadly , Yes and I have repeatedly posted that he did.
I hope you are sitting down for this part: I would like to know WHY the FBI has not infiltrated these groups and hired informants the same way they did back in the 1960's and 1970's with the Klan ; Black Panthers and Nation of Islam. Why not ? And then leak that they have done so and then sit back while the members get paranoid about who they can and can't trust.


You in turn get so worked up about Trump's policies , especially on immigration , that you advocate uncivil behavior that is violent enough in itself and certainly sets the stage for imminent violence. Because you think the cause is just and Trump's "crimes" so heinous you not only approve but advocate such behavior. Would you like it if people who disagreed with your economic , immigration and environmental positions got in YOUR face while you were peacefully dining ? Made you feel unsafe ? Told you to leave a public place where you had a perfect right to be ? Whether you worked for Biden , Obama, Schumer , Pelosi , AOC or not ? What is wrong with advocating for civility. Btw, that was what ultimately disgraced Trump once and for all. Afaik Trump NEVER advocated civility. More's the pity. Ironically in private settings he is the epitome of civility and good manners. Who knew ? And So what ? His public persona was borderline boorish and got much worse
AFTER the 2020 election.

I understand that you want Trump to be permanently ineligible for any future run for public office. Like a lot of things, it is a laudable goal but there is no Constitutional way to do it. He is a PRIVATE citizen. I know there are some who have let their wishes father their thoughts and are literally pretending that Congress can proceed as it is doing now. Even though they do not have the votes and the Constitutional underpinning is shaky at best. Just look at the so-called precedents you cited. One was Belknap , who was Secretary of War in the 1870's who got caught in some sort of corruption. He was impeached but resigned before his actual trial. The Senate proceeded anyway but lacked the 2/3 vote to convict.

If they were REALLY smart the Dems would hope that Trump DOES run again. First he will suck out the oxygen for all the other candidates. Sad but true.
Second it will tear the Republican Party apart between Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump forces . Wouldn't that be a good thing ? From your pov ?

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 10:09 AM
Those “rightwing extremists” have been accepted literally into the fold by the republicans party and hold office. I think you need to take a closer look at the chosen pathway for the party. What is this mile nonsense, like is that super super far? Have you been to DC?

It takes about twenty minutes for the average person to walk a mile.

dpacrkk
02-03-2021, 10:11 AM
The rally was held over a mile from the Capitol. The riot is looking more and more like it was preplanned by right wing wingnut extremists. Hawley expressed support for the Rally. Dumb but not criminal. He has condemned the riot.

Except Hawley was on the Capitol grounds when he made the gesture towards the protesters that were also on the Capitol grounds, and, according to you, far away from the rally. It wasn't "HOURS" before, and Hawley wasn't "over a mile" away from the Capitol. What do you have for us next?


I understand that you want Trump to be permanently ineligible for any future run for public office. Like a lot of things, it is a laudable goal but there is no Constitutional way to do it. He is a PRIVATE citizen.

This is not correct. There is precedent of impeaching someone and trying them after their term is over. The idea is that the charges stemmed from actions they performed when they were in office.

kamiliam
02-03-2021, 10:16 AM
It takes about twenty minutes for the average person to walk a mile.

It is about a 10-15 minute walk, plus there were already tons of his supporters gathered at the Capitol lawn. I don’t understand where your confusion comes from.

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 10:26 AM
Those “rightwing extremists” have been accepted literally into the fold by the republicans party and hold office. I think you need to take a closer look at the chosen pathway for the party. What is this mile nonsense, like is that super super far? Have you been to DC?

Thankfully that is NOT true. There is one ( 1 ) QAnon nut in the House afaik. One too many I grant you but thankfully only one. Personally I think the Republicans should at least take away her committee assignments . She really believes that Jews are using lasers from outer space to start forest fires ? I am NOT making that up. Personally I'd like to know why she can't be declared mentally unfit to serve and removed ?

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 10:34 AM
Except Hawley was on the Capitol grounds when he made the gesture towards the protesters that were also on the Capitol grounds, and, according to you, far away from the rally. It wasn't "HOURS" before, and Hawley wasn't "over a mile" away from the Capitol. What do you have for us next?



This is not correct. There is precedent of impeaching someone and trying them after their term is over. The idea is that the charges stemmed from actions they performed when they were in office.

OOPS. You're right. It WAS at the Capitol. Sorry . I'm responding to so many different posts and posters after 5 days off the board and 3 full days of snowblowing and shoveling ( Wait , don't tell me. All thanks to Climate Change lol ) that I let myself get discombobulated. BUT when Hawley raised his fist the people gathered at the Capitol were still behaving peacefully. It was AT LEAST an hour later by YOUR timeline that they started rioting. In any event I AGREE that he made a mistake in expressing any support for them. The SMART thing to do would have been to tell them to go home ; that Trump lost and Biden won. And NOT to have asked for an audit of the vote. We AGREE. We AGREE . We AGREE. While it is arguably too late now he has definitely condemned the rioting and violence.

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 11:00 AM
Btw- Does anyone support AOC's proposed Ministry Of Truth ? According to her the government ought to vet all postings ( I guess including S-Web ) for truthiness .
Robert Reich has proposed a national Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Any takers ?

kamiliam
02-03-2021, 11:07 AM
Thankfully that is NOT true. There is one ( 1 ) QAnon nut in the House afaik. One too many I grant you but thankfully only one. Personally I think the Republicans should at least take away her committee assignments . She really believes that Jews are using lasers from outer space to start forest fires ? I am NOT making that up. Personally I'd like to know why she can't be declared mentally unfit to serve and removed ?

She is not the only one. The moderate Republicans are all over the news saying we have to respect her beliefs and to respect the people that voted for her. That is the problem the base is this extreme, this while they are sticking with this dog and pony show. They want to win elections and don’t care how dangerous this is.

Add Hawley, cruz(who continues to go back and forth)boebert, gaetz, and now Kevin McCarthy who continues to act as if trump and his loyalists are still the head of the Republican Party. They continue to peddle election fraud and the legitimacy of a vindictive useless coup that really only caused destruction and murder not to mention set back all of our rights to assemble by their careless and dangerous actions.

We don’t need to move on and social media will continue to ban those who try to lie away what happened and what is continuing to happen. This is in the conservatives hands. The writing is on the wall.

dpacrkk
02-03-2021, 11:15 AM
Btw- Does anyone support AOC's proposed Ministry Of Truth ? According to her the government ought to vet all postings ( I guess including S-Web ) for truthiness .
Robert Reich has proposed a national Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Any takers ?

She never called it the "Ministry of Truth." It's only dubbed that by media outlets meant to mislead people with false comparisons to 1984. Given your question here, it looks like it worked on you.

Anyway, here is what she's actually quoted as saying:

"What I can say is that there is absolutely a commission being discussed. But it seems to be more investigatory in style, rather than truth and reconciliation, so I think that’s an interesting concept for us to explore."

"We're going to have to figure how we rein in our media environment so that you can't just spew disinformation and misinformation. It's one thing to have differing opinions, but it's another thing entirely to just say things that are false."

Yes, I agree with the bolded part.

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 11:44 AM
She is not the only one. The moderate Republicans are all over the news saying we have to respect her beliefs and to respect the people that voted for her. That is the problem the base is this extreme, this while they are sticking with this dog and pony show. They want to win elections and don’t care how dangerous this is.

Add Hawley, cruz(who continues to go back and forth)boebert, gaetz, and now Kevin McCarthy who continues to act as if trump and his loyalists are still the head of the Republican Party. They continue to peddle election fraud and the legitimacy of a vindictive useless coup that really only caused destruction and murder not to mention set back all of our rights to assemble by their careless and dangerous actions.

We don’t need to move on and social media will continue to ban those who try to lie away what happened and what is continuing to happen. This is in the conservatives hands. The writing is on the wall.

There are other QAnon members and/or supporters in Congress ? Please name them.

You are correct that the Republican leadership is in a quandary over Marjorie Taylor Greene. Afaic they deserve the White Feather Award for defying simple common sense by not saying : " This woman is nuts. She is an anti-semite. We have relieved her of all her committee assignments . Like we did to Steven King in 2019. " I don't know if they actually have grounds for removing her. That is a VERY tricky and difficult area. In the past , it took a criminal conviction to support expulsion.

kamiliam
02-03-2021, 11:56 AM
There are other QAnon members and/or supporters in Congress ? Please name them.

You are correct that the Republican leadership is in a quandary over Marjorie Taylor Greene. Afaic they deserve the White Feather Award for defying simple common sense by not saying : " This woman is nuts. She is an anti-semite. We have relieved her of all her committee assignments . Like we did to Steven King in 2019. " I don't know if they actually have grounds for removing her. That is a VERY tricky and difficult area. In the past , it took a criminal conviction to support expulsion.
Who are completely open about it? I already named her Boebert. In private who knows, did you know that Clarence Thomas wife who is heavily involved in the party is also a qanon conspiracy fan. Even paid for the buses. Boebert posted on Twitter the location of pelosi during the insurrection.

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 12:04 PM
She never called it the "Ministry of Truth." It's only dubbed that by media outlets meant to mislead people with false comparisons to 1984. Given your question here, it looks like it worked on you.

Anyway, here is what she's actually quoted as saying:

"What I can say is that there is absolutely a commission being discussed. But it seems to be more investigatory in style, rather than truth and reconciliation, so I think that’s an interesting concept for us to explore."

"We're going to have to figure how we rein in our media environment so that you can't just spew disinformation and misinformation. It's one thing to have differing opinions, but it's another thing entirely to just say things that are false."

Yes, I agree with the bolded part.

In order to act on alleged falsehoods it is necessary to repeal the First Amendment. Without getting metaphysical ( e.g. What is True ? What is Truth ? ) we have over two hundred years of letting history decide after full and robust debate and discussion. WHO gets to decide what is "false " ? Based on what ? And if there is falsehood , then what ? Criminal libel prosecutions ? We can all agree ( I think ) that Trump set new standards for mendacity. But he's not alone. Plenty of folks in and out of government have varying familiarity with truthiness.

O.K. it was a bit of hyperbole on my part to call it a Ministry Of Truth BUT afaic the idea is just as scary as what Orwell wrote about. What's next ? Revival of The House Un-American Activities Committee ? We already have a LOT of Libs in and out of government pushing a Blacklist of former Trump officials.

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 12:07 PM
Please show me the Tweet from Boebert. If , IF she did that she can be arrested and ought to be.

First I'm hearing about Mrs. Thomas. What if anything do you have to back that up ?

If there are closet QAnon members in Congress then how do YOU know about them ?

kamiliam
02-03-2021, 12:15 PM
Please show me the Tweet from Boebert. If , IF she did that she can be arrested and ought to be.

First I'm hearing about Mrs. Thomas. What if anything do you have to back that up ?

If there are closet QAnon members in Congress then how do YOU know about them ?



https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1346898735050199050?s=20

a brief look at mrs Thomas
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/justice-clarence-thomas-virginia-thomas-biden-conspiracy-theories-b1399059.html

and am using deductive reasoning to say there are politicians supportive of the fringe because they are the base and they don’t want to lose. Belief doesn’t matter all that much it seems. It is more rational given their behavior that they support their general ideas vs Biden or Harris being Marxist sympathizers

also what were Orwell’s politics? Who do you think the book is about?

Raziel
02-03-2021, 12:24 PM
The book is about totalitarianism, the nature of Humans to follow it, the weakness of Human beings to resist it, the mailability of the Human mind. There is probably more (it's been a long time since I read 1984). Orwell was a GREAT writer. Read Animal Farm if you haven't. It's really spooky.

kamiliam
02-03-2021, 12:26 PM
The book is about totalitarianism, the nature of Humans to follow it, the weakness of Human beings to resist it, the mailability of the Human mind. There is probably more. Orwell was a GREAT writer.
Orwell literally went to Spain to fight fascists, he was OG ANITFA. That’s what I was getting at, but yeah he was a great writer, his point has been completely missed by many it seems.

dpacrkk
02-03-2021, 12:32 PM
In order to act on alleged falsehoods it is necessary to repeal the First Amendment. Without getting metaphysical ( e.g. What is True ? What is Truth ? ) we have over two hundred years of history of letting history decide after full and robust debate and discussion.

No it doesn't require repealing the first amendment. And don't try pulling that crap with me. You know damn well what "true" and "truth" are, particularly in the context of this conversation.


We can all agree ( I think ) that Trump set new standards for mendacity. But he's not alone. Plenty of folks in and out of government have varying familiarity with truthiness.

Great! Then you openly admit you know how to identify truth and falsehoods. So get rid of the falsehoods.


What's next ? Revival of The House Un-American Activities Committee ? We already have a LOT of Libs in and out of government pushing a Blacklist of former Trump officials.

No that's not next. Post-hoc editing of falsehoods is far from investigating people's private sentiments. That is another exaggeration.

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 12:36 PM
https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1346898735050199050?s=20

a brief look at mrs Thomas
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/justice-clarence-thomas-virginia-thomas-biden-conspiracy-theories-b1399059.html

and am using deductive reasoning to say there are politicians supportive of the fringe because they are the base and they don’t want to lose. Belief doesn’t matter all that much it seems. It is more rational given their behavior that they support their general ideas vs Biden or Harris being Marxist sympathizers

also what were Orwell’s politics? Who do you think the book is about?


You are 0 for 2. Boebert did not do anything of the sort. Neither did Mrs. Thomas. She supported investigating Hunter Biden back in OCTOBER. Please read your own link BEFORE posting.

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 12:39 PM
https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1346898735050199050?s=20

a brief look at mrs Thomas
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/justice-clarence-thomas-virginia-thomas-biden-conspiracy-theories-b1399059.html

and am using deductive reasoning to say there are politicians supportive of the fringe because they are the base and they don’t want to lose. Belief doesn’t matter all that much it seems. It is more rational given their behavior that they support their general ideas vs Biden or Harris being Marxist sympathizers

also what were Orwell’s politics? Who do you think the book is about?


If you are trying to say that there are Republicans who are wary of pissing off Trump supporters then I get your post. Otherwise it is unintelligible.

kamiliam
02-03-2021, 12:47 PM
You are 0 for 2. Boebert did not do anything of the sort. Neither did Mrs. Thomas. She supported investigating Hunter Biden back in OCTOBER. Please read your own link BEFORE posting.
I did read it and many others, she is crazy fringe. Her husband is on the SUPREME COURT. She even apologized to his clerks for her role, she like others scrubbed their social media after the fact. She has donated large amounts of money to Charlie Kirk’s group that definitely bused people in. As always I am not promoting my politics or getting in a pissing match about this. The establishment Republicans party is very intertwined with all these far right groups. There are old school republicans that are horrified by this. I went to college with some and the not totally crazy ones have moved on to the private sector because they can’t do it anymore. Others have gone full on conspiracy. https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/ginni-thomas-just-apologized-to-clarence-thomass-court-clerks-the-internet-was-not-pleased/


how is the Boebert thing a zero, why did she openly post that while there were gunmen looking for the speaker? That is from her Twitter

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 12:59 PM
No it doesn't require repealing the first amendment. And don't try pulling that crap with me. You know damn well what "true" and "truth" are, particularly in the context of this conversation.



Great! Then you openly admit you know how to identify truth and falsehoods. So get rid of the falsehoods.



No that's not next. Post-hoc editing of falsehoods is far from investigating people's private sentiments. That is another exaggeration.

First of all we have a still ( mostly ) free press to assess the truth or falsehood of various statements PLUS things like Factcheck PLUS the Internet PLUS various blogs and websites. Truth is a product of inquiry , reason , debate and discussion . The truth that results is rarely absolute. That the sun rises in the east - Yes. But there are "flat earthers " and those who think the Moon landings were a hoax. But what does result is usually true enough for common acceptance. The closer we can get to something akin to " 3 plus 3 equals 6 " the better.

I am able to discern truth and falsehood to my own satisfaction and for my own purposes. So are most other people. I don't need a government agency to help me do it and can't understand why anyone else does. Or feels the need for such a thing. Public discussion and debate seems to work very nicely in building consensus on what is true, what is false and what is a matter of opinion about which reasonable minds can agree or disagree.

There are a lot of things spouted by Dems and Libs that I think are false , or less than true. Lots of Republicans and conservatives think likewise. NONE have ever argued for a government agency to DECIDE what is or isn't "TRUE " or "FALSE ". Even Libs. are troubled by such a proposal. Why not just respond to something you think is false or factually wanting with more and better facts ?

eagle2
02-03-2021, 01:08 PM
You are 0 for 2. Boebert did not do anything of the sort. Neither did Mrs. Thomas. She supported investigating Hunter Biden back in OCTOBER. Please read your own link BEFORE posting.

If you're referring to QAnon, this is what Boebert said back in May:

Boebert said in May she hopes QAnon "is real because it only means America is getting stronger and better and people are returning to conservative values," which she supports.

https://www.axios.com/qanon-nominees-congress-gop-8086ed21-b7d3-46af-9016-d132e65ba801.html

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 01:09 PM
I did read it and many others, she is crazy fringe. Her husband is on the SUPREME COURT. She even apologized to his clerks for her role, she like others scrubbed their social media after the fact. She has donated large amounts of money to Charlie Kirk’s group that definitely bused people in. As always I am not promoting my politics or getting in a pissing match about this. The establishment Republicans party is very intertwined with all these far right groups. There are old school republicans that are horrified by this. I went to college with some and the not totally crazy ones have moved on to the private sector because they can’t do it anymore. Others have gone full on conspiracy. https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/ginni-thomas-just-apologized-to-clarence-thomass-court-clerks-the-internet-was-not-pleased/


how is the Boebert thing a zero, why did she openly post that while there were gunmen looking for the speaker? That is from her Twitter

I know who Charlie Kirk is. This is the first I am hearing that he had any involvement with the January 6 demonstration. Let alone the Beer Belly Putsch.

I READ Boebert's Tweets. There is not one telling anyone where Pelosi was or anything like it. There were "No gunmen looking for the Speaker ". None of the rioters had guns. Thank God ! Boebert is a gun nut who thinks she is entitled to pack inside the Capitol despite a law prohibiting anyone from having weapons on the premises. One reason for the law is to keep Congressmen and Senators from shooting each other. Seriously. Congress has a history of members physically attacking each other. The pre-Civil War assault on Charles Sumner by Billy "The Bully" Brooks with a cane while a buddy stood by with a loaded pistol in case anyone tried to interfere being the most well known and remembered example.

kamiliam
02-03-2021, 01:17 PM
I know who Charlie Kirk is. This is the first I am hearing that he had any involvement with the January 6 demonstration. Let alone the Beer Belly Putsch.

I READ Boebert's Tweets. There is not one telling anyone where Pelosi was or anything like it. There were "No gunmen looking for the Speaker ". None of the rioters had guns. Thank God ! Boebert is a gun nut who thinks she is entitled to pack inside the Capitol despite a law prohibiting anyone from having weapons on the premises. One reason for the law is to keep Congressmen and Senators from shooting each other. Seriously. Congress has a history of members physically attacking each other. The pre-Civil War assault on Charles Sumner by Billy "The Bully" Brooks with a cane while a buddy stood by with a loaded pistol in case anyone tried to interfere being the most well known and remembered example.

Yeah sorry I misspoke they just wanted to kill them with objects and their bare hands. (although I would bet there were people with guns inside, they didn’t arrest many immediately)
I don’t think you understand how PAC money works in modern day politics. These groups are all connected because they make a lot of money. I am not gonna hand hold you on how to figure this out because it is set up for plausible deniability. Very smart lawyers and think tanks have figured this out.

My main point is that you keep talking like it is a few crazies when it is really that all of them are benefiting from the crazies. it is up to the right to denounce their crazies.

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 01:24 PM
If you're referring to QAnon, this is what Boebert said back in May:

Boebert said in May she hopes QAnon "is real because it only means America is getting stronger and better and people are returning to conservative values," which she supports.

https://www.axios.com/qanon-nominees-congress-gop-8086ed21-b7d3-46af-9016-d132e65ba801.html

At least one of us actually READ your link. Boebert is NOT a member or supporter of QAnon. Neither were any of the other 10 listed CANDIDATES. All differentiated between QAnon and SOME issues of concern. SOME of which QANON argues for .

That being said , in a more perfect world more Republicans would be more courageous in calling out QAnon and other fringe groups. McCarthy and other Republicans are trying to walk a tightrope without pissing off Trump supporters. I am listening to Hannity right now argue AGAINST removing Greene from her Committees even though he deplores her following a school shooting survivor and calling him a phony ; her Jews causing forest fires theory etc. I NEVER liked Hannity and ALWAYS thought he was a total asshole so I am not surprised. Why do I listen to him ? To keep my finger on the pulse. Plus he does get good guests.

I've posted this before : One of the best things Bill Buckley ever did was drive out the Birchers and anti-Semites from the Conservative Movement. Sadly he did not drive out the crypto -racists. Today, Republicans and Conservatives are making a HUGE mistake by not driving out the modern equivalent of John Birchers i.e. QAnon ; the Proud Boys ; the 3 Percenters etc. They are letting themselves get tarred with too many of the same brushes. They had the guts to marginalize Steve King a couple years ago. Why not now ?