Log in

View Full Version : Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech



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

dpacrkk
02-03-2021, 01:27 PM
First of all we have a still ( mostly ) free press to assess the truth or falsehood of various statements

We have a free press. There are even media outlets that are free to openly lie. These outlets have no obligations to the truth at all.


PLUS things like Factcheck PLUS the Internet PLUS arious blogs and websites.

How many times are you going to bring this up? This will always be the response:


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!"


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.

No it's not. Objective matters don't waver between false and true due to those conditions. Your examples are not the best: there is absolutely no way to inquire, reason, debate, nor discuss that the earth is flat or the moon landing didn't happen without using complete falsehoods. Both of those should be universally accepted; the existence of people believing otherwise is already bad enough.


There are a lot of things spouted by Dems and Libs that I think are false , or less than true... NONE have ever argued for a government agency to DECIDE what is or isn't "TRUE " or "FALSE ".

This is a whataboutism. Nonetheless, why do you think this would only apply one way? Get rid of it all. As for "why now:" falsehoods are getting far more prevalent, and an insurrection based on acting on some falsehoods happened.

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 01:30 PM
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.

I know all about PAC's . They are protected by the First Amendment. There are just as many Liberal and far left PAC's. So what ? I don't ASSUME the interconnections and mutual support that you do.

eagle2
02-03-2021, 01:31 PM
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.


Again, you refuse to see Trump for who he is. You deny facts, even when they're right in front of you on video.



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.


Nowhere does the Constitution say a public official can't be impeached after he leaves office. It's already happened twice, including once in 1798, when most of the people who wrote the Constitution were still alive. Do you think the people who wrote The Constitution didn't know it?



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.


I'm pretty sure they did. The FBI warned the Capitol Police about the threats, but they didn't take the warnings seriously.



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.


No, I get worked up about Trump's cruelty, callousness, racism, and dishonesty. Please answer this. Why is it you're so concerned about the people who helped enable all of the horrific things Trump has done, but you're not concerned at all about the people who have been victimized by Trump? Why aren't you concerned about all of the people of color being harassed and worse, based on the hateful filth coming out of Trump's big mouth? Why aren't you concerned about all of the reporters being inundated with death threats for daring to say anything critical of Trump? Why aren't you concerned about Dr. Fauci's family having to hire body guards, after being inundated with death threats from Trump supporters? Why aren't you concerned about the Clintons, the Obamas, George Soros, and CNN being mailed bombs by one of Trump's supporters?



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 to 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 ?

I'm more concerned about my country than I am about hurting a political party. Trump running for President again only means more promotion of hate and racism, and more incitement to violence. There is a constitutional way to prevent Trump from running again. Impeach and convict, or bar him from running again, based on the 14th Amendment.

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 01:33 PM
We have a free press. There are even media outlets that are free to openly lie. These outlets have no obligations to the truth at all.



How many times are you going to bring this up? This will always be the response:





No it's not. Objective matters don't waver between false and true due to those conditions. Your examples are not the best: there is absolutely no way to inquire, reason, debate, nor discuss that the earth is flat or the moon landing didn't happen without using complete falsehoods. Both of those should be universally accepted; the existence of people believing otherwise is already bad enough.



This is a whataboutism. Nonetheless, why do you think this would only apply one way? Get rid of it all. As for "why now:" falsehoods are getting far more prevalent, and an insurrection based on acting on some falsehoods happened.


What is your point ? We have always had people who insist on taking a vacation from the truth. It's only now that we have apparently serious people seriously advocating that they be de-programmed ; reeducated AND protected from falsehood.

dpacrkk
02-03-2021, 01:52 PM
What is your point ? We have always had people who insist on taking a vacation from the truth. It's only now that we have apparently serious people seriously advocating that they be de-programmed ; reeducated AND protected from falsehood.

Sometimes it shows that you don't read anything after one paragraph. Let's try again:


As for "why now:" falsehoods are getting far more prevalent, and an insurrection based on acting on some falsehoods happened.


None of the rioters had guns. Thank God !

This is incorrect. Christopher Alberts, as detailed in the court filling. And to be clear, this did not become true as a result of this discussion. It was always true. You just didn't know about it and tried to tell us otherwise. This isn't helping your claim of: "I am able to discern truth and falsehood to my own satisfaction and for my own purposes. So are most other people."

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 02:01 PM
Again, you refuse to see Trump for who he is. You deny facts, even when they're right in front of you on video.



Nowhere does the Constitution say a public official can't be impeached after he leaves office. It's already happened twice, including once in 1798, when most of the people who wrote the Constitution were still alive. Do you think the people who wrote The Constitution didn't know it?



I'm pretty sure they did. The FBI warned the Capitol Police about the threats, but they didn't take the warnings seriously.



No, I get worked up about Trump's cruelty, callousness, racism, and dishonesty. Please answer this. Why is it you're so concerned about the people who helped enable all of the horrific things Trump has done, but you're not concerned at all about the people who have been victimized by Trump? Why aren't you concerned about all of the people of color being harassed and worse, based on the hateful filth coming out of Trump's big mouth? Why aren't you concerned about all of the reporters being inundated with death threats for daring to say anything critical of Trump? Why aren't you concerned about Dr. Fauci's family having to hire body guards, after being inundated with death threats from Trump supporters? Why aren't you concerned about the Clintons, the Obamas, George Soros, and CNN being mailed bombs by one of Trump's supporters?



I'm more concerned about my country than I am about hurting a political party. Trump running for President again only means more promotion of hate and racism, and more incitement to violence. There is a constitutional way to prevent Trump from running again. Impeach and convict, or bar him from running again, based on the 14th Amendment.

Please stop patronizing me, I know exactly what Trump is. I just don't hate him the way you do.

For the last time. I watched the video. At no time did he ever tell anyone to swig bleach or disinfectant. What he did say was clumsy , careless and dumb enough.

If you READ the Constitution it makes it very clear that the SOLE purpose of Impeachment of the President is to REMOVE a sitting President. Period. It is silent on making a former President ineligible UNLESS he was Impeached AND CONVICTED.

Actually the FBI has NOT infiltrated these groups of fruits and nuts. Monitored their social media ? Yes. Attended their meetings and cozied up to their leaders ? Nope. Sadly what info the FBI was able to provide was not acted on by the Capitol Police; the DC Police and others until it was too late.

The short answer to your question is because I do not see anything Trump has done as "horrific". I do not see him as the monster that you do. I differentiate between his rhetoric and his policies. I don't think his immigration policy is racist. I don't see the detention facilities as intentionally inhumane. Imperfect , yes. But I have just as much sympathy for someone who loses their job to an illegal immigrant or gets their wages held down because of illegal immigration. You seem to have none for such people. I don't blame Trump for a lot of the ills that you want to hold him responsible for. Just like how I didn't blame Bernie when one of his supporters shot Scalise.

While he should not be threatened ( or his family ) I am fed up with Fauci and have been for quite a while. He repeatedly LIED ( and later admitted doing so ) and made serious errors throughout the Covid crisis. I am even angrier with Cuomo , Murphy and their fellow Governors who ordered nursing homes to admit Covid positive patients when they KNEW the nursing homes did not have enough trained personnel or equipment to prevent spreading infection. At the time Cuomo had an entire hospital ship that mostly went unused. In short , nobody has spoken out against threats and violence more than me.

Trump didn't mail bombs to anyone. He didn't threaten any reporters. Again, I oppose all threats and violence.

If there is a CONSTITUTIONAL way to prevent Trump from ever running again , it will have my full support.

Eric Stoner
02-03-2021, 02:08 PM
Sometimes it shows that you don't read anything after one paragraph. Let's try again:





This is incorrect. Christopher Alberts, as detailed in the court filling. And to be clear, this did not become true as a result of this discussion. It was always true. You just didn't know about it and tried to tell us otherwise. This isn't helping your claim of: "I am able to discern truth and falsehood to my own satisfaction and for my own purposes. So are most other people."

I am trying VERY hard not to personalize. But I am having trouble trying to understand some of your posts. Your grammar and syntax presents certain challenges to anyone trying to follow your argument. Are you seriously trying to claim that we have more falsehood now than at other times in our history ? Read your history. We had political campaigns throughout our history where truth was the last thing anyone ever thought about. What about all our War-time propaganda ? You want to know how we were able to tell when Presidents Johnson and Nixon were lying to the country ? Their lips were moving.

If any of the rioters had guns on them it wouldn't surprise me. Thank God they didn't use them.

dpacrkk
02-03-2021, 02:35 PM
I am trying VERY hard not to personalize. But I am having trouble trying to understand some of your posts. Your grammar and syntax presents certain challenges to anyone trying to follow your argument.

My posts literally go: "quoted point," "response to quoted point." Or "something Eric typed," and then "dpacrkk's response to that." I do not find this difficult to follow and would not know how to simplify this.


Are you seriously trying to claim that we have more falsehood now than at other times in our history ? Read your history. We had political campaigns throughout our history where truth was the last thing anyone ever thought about. What about all our War-time propaganda ? You want to know how we were able to tell when 'Presidents Johnson and Nixon were lying to the country ? Their lips were moving.

This is whataboutism. Again, get rid of all of it. We live in a time where disinformation is spread more easily, resulting in what passes as "news" becoming sensationalized just to get the median person's attention.


If any of the rioters had guns on them it wouldn't surprise me. Thank God they didn't use them.

And that's the problem! You try to pass "None of the rioters had guns" as true, but it turns out to be a falsehood uncovered by seconds of Googling, and yet you see no harm in that. Imagine, let's say, 74216154 (a random number, I swear!) people believed that claim and went on to think they were on the "right" side. Well, that would be wrong and dangerous. To reiterate:

"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."

kamiliam
02-03-2021, 04:16 PM
To bring this a bit more on topic on my end. I would urge you to watch this video of a woman who realized she was a victim of a disinformation campaign on social media that lead her to Q. There is a responsibility to ban conspiracies and untruths that I would much rather be handled by a TOS rather then by mandate by the federal government. I too am a believer in the first amendment and am also concerned about big tech. https://youtu.be/QHOK_9hWU5U

Raziel
02-03-2021, 04:27 PM
Q has got to be the STUPIDEST conspiracy theory I have ever heard. Literally not even a retard would believe it (And I'm not insulting retarded folks). Just DUMB!

eagle2
02-03-2021, 09:46 PM
If you READ the Constitution it makes it very clear that the SOLE purpose of Impeachment of the President is to REMOVE a sitting President. Period. It is silent on making a former President ineligible UNLESS he was Impeached AND CONVICTED.


Eric,

If it is unconstitutional to impeach a public official after he leaves office, please explain why Congress impeached William Blount after he was expelled from office in 1798, at a time when many of the people who wrote The Constitution were still alive. The people who wrote The Constitution would know better than anyone.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The-First-Impeachment.htm



On January 28, 1798, with Congress meeting for the second session of the Fifth Congress, the House continued with impeachment proceedings, despite the fact that Blount had already been expelled.

Raziel
02-04-2021, 12:58 AM
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.

BTW, so did Hemmingway. One of my literary Icons. Just thought I'd mention that.

Eric Stoner
02-04-2021, 08:44 AM
My posts literally go: "quoted point," "response to quoted point." Or "something Eric typed," and then "dpacrkk's response to that." I do not find this difficult to follow and would not know how to simplify this.



This is whataboutism. Again, get rid of all of it. We live in a time where disinformation is spread more easily, resulting in what passes as "news" becoming sensationalized just to get the median person's attention.



And that's the problem! You try to pass "None of the rioters had guns" as true, but it turns out to be a falsehood uncovered by seconds of Googling, and yet you see no harm in that. Imagine, let's say, 74216154 (a random number, I swear!) people believed that claim and went on to think they were on the "right" side. Well, that would be wrong and dangerous. To reiterate:

"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."

Not to personalize and I apologize if it comes across that way but my issue is with how some of your posts are written; not what you are trying to say.

I am glad to see that you value truth. So do I. If you expect to get it from politicians and their media handmaidens you will experience nothing but disappointment. Look at how AOC just got busted for lying about how threatened she felt when the rioters broke in to the Capitol to "look for her ;to murder her " - HER WORDS. Only problem was she was NOT in the Capitol building at the time. She was ACROSS THE STREET in the Cannon Congressional Office Building which had ZERO rioters and was NEVER under threat. She said she was in " HER OFFICE " when the rioters broke in. That's where her office is and no rioters ever went near the building i.e. she was NEVER in any danger.

Were any of the rioters arrested for illegal gun possession ? I'm asking. I don't recall any reports that they were. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them were packing and it IS a crime to carry a gun onto the grounds of the Capitol.

You call my attempts to make comparisons and /or maintain a sense of proportion "whataboutism". Very respectfully I reject that . I think some comparisons are valid. And a sense of our history replete with various instances of political violence for ; against and sometimes BY the government enable some to see that our current difficulties are not all that unique.

Eric Stoner
02-04-2021, 08:45 AM
Q has got to be the STUPIDEST conspiracy theory I have ever heard. Literally not even a retard would believe it (And I'm not insulting retarded folks). Just DUMB!

That is not a nice word. It is out of favor to put it mildly. You may want to edit your post. Just a suggestion.

Eric Stoner
02-04-2021, 08:47 AM
Eric,

If it is unconstitutional to impeach a public official after he leaves office, please explain why Congress impeached William Blount after he was expelled from office in 1798, at a time when many of the people who wrote The Constitution were still alive. The people who wrote The Constitution would know better than anyone.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The-First-Impeachment.htm

I am talking about the OFFICE of the POTUS. There are specific provisions dealing with Impeachment of the POTUS and NO OTHER OFFICIAL.

I am aware of the precedents you cite and others. NONE involved Impeachment of a POTUS.

Eric Stoner
02-04-2021, 08:52 AM
Btw, Orwell started as a leftist who went to Spain to fight for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. He , along with many others, was so repulsed by the Communists both Spanish and Russian that he rethought his support for Socialism and Communism. He wrote "Animal Farm" and "1984 "about COMMUNISM or more specifically Soviet Communism /Stalinism .

dpacrkk
02-04-2021, 09:27 AM
Not to personalize and I apologize if it comes across that way but my issue is with how some of your posts are written; not what you are trying to say.

I'm well aware. I still cannot fathom how the format of "Eric Stoner's quote" followed by "dpacrkk's response to Eric Stoner's quote" difficult to understand.


Look
at how AOC just got busted for lying about how threatened she felt when the rioters broke in to the Capitol to "look for her ;to murder her " - HER WORDS. Only problem was she was NOT in the Capitol building at the time. She was ACROSS THE STREET in the Congressional Office Building which had ZERO rioters and was NEVER under threat.

Google turns up zero search results for aoc (and variants of her name) and (intersecting) the phrase "look for her to murder her," so those aren't "HER WORDS." Anyway, the Cannon House is part of the Capitol complex, it and other buildings in the complex were evacuated (why evacuate them if there's no reasonable possibility of danger?), and the width of a street isn't far nor much of a deterrent (nor is a mile to dredge that one up).


Were any of the rioters arrested for illegal gun possession ? I'm asking. I don't recall any reports that they were. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them were packing and it IS a crime to carry a gun onto the grounds of the Capitol.

Not to personalize and I apologize if it comes across that way[,] but my issue is with how you sometimes don't read past the first paragraph. So here it is again: "Christopher Alberts, as detailed in the court filling."


You call my attempts to make comparisons and /or maintain a sense of proportion "whataboutism". Very respectfully I reject that . I think some comparisons are valid. And a sense of our history replete with various instances of political violence both for ;against and sometimes BY the government enable some to see that our current difficulties are not all that unique.

They amount to "what about when other people told falsehoods in the past?" And my answer remains the same: it was wrong then, it is still wrong now, and get rid of it all. It seems you are trying to tell us that nothing had been done about analogous situations, so nothing should be done now. Getting rid of disinformation is not bad, particularly when it's so easy to disseminate now and American pedagogy has resulted in the median American not questioning any claim enough to even spend seconds Googling for primary source information and just blindly believing anything a pundit states.

kamiliam
02-04-2021, 10:14 AM
Btw, Orwell started as a leftist who went to Spain to fight for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. He , along with many others, was so repulsed by the Communists both Spanish and Russian that he rethought his support for Socialism and Communism. He wrote "Animal Farm" and "1984 "about COMMUNISM or more specifically Soviet Communism /Stalinism .


this is incorrect. You are using the term republicans as if it applies to our American version of that word. Very weird, like words don’t have meaning... he fought with the anarchists.

you are correct that he was against Leninism/stalinism many on the left were and are.

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it
- “Why I Write” George Orwell (1946)

Eric Stoner
02-04-2021, 11:01 AM
I'm well aware. I still cannot fathom how the format of "Eric Stoner's quote" followed by "dpacrkk's response to Eric Stoner's quote" difficult to understand.



Google turns up zero search results for aoc (and variants of her name) and (intersecting) the phrase "look for her to murder her," so those aren't "HER WORDS." Anyway, the Cannon House is part of the Capitol complex, it and other buildings in the complex were evacuated (why evacuate them if there's no reasonable possibility of danger?), and the width of a street isn't far nor much of a deterrent (nor is a mile to dredge that one up).



Not to personalize and I apologize if it comes across that way[,] but my issue is with how you sometimes don't read past the first paragraph. So here it is again: "Christopher Alberts, as detailed in the court filling."



They amount to "what about when other people told falsehoods in the past?" And my answer remains the same: it was wrong then, it is still wrong now, and get rid of it all. It seems you are trying to tell us that nothing had been done about analogous situations, so nothing should be done now. Getting rid of disinformation is not bad, particularly when it's so easy to disseminate now and American pedagogy has resulted in the median American not questioning any claim enough to even spend seconds Googling for primary source information and just blindly believing anything a pundit states.

Obviously, I did not make myself clear and I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. The grammar and syntax of a couple of your posts made them difficult for me to grasp. It was NOT the format of your posts or your choice of words. I get where you are coming from NOW so let's leave it alone. Since I THINK we are on the same wavelength, please tell me how you propose to "get rid of " alleged falsehoods ? And WHO do you propose should do the factchecking ? What sanctions ought there be if someone , somewhere writes something that is not true ?
Does intent play any role in your scheme of enforced truthiness ? ( I'm sorry but that word dates back to when Colbert was actually funny on The Daily Show and I just can't resist lol. ). If we applied the standard that I THINK ( not sure ; please feel free to correct me ) you are arguing for then half the posts in this forum could potentially be covered. Most of the posters did not intentionally post anything that wasn't true. Not afaik. More and better info was posted and we were able to get closer to the truth. What's wrong with that ? Good speech has historically driven bad speech out of the marketplace of ideas. How exactly do you intend to differentiate between facts and opinions and variants of both ?

Confirmed reports that AOC lied or at least exaggerated the threat to her personally are all over the Internet. Contrary to her 90 minute Zoom recounting of her experience she was NOT in the Capitol building at the time. She said so. She said she was in "her office ". However, she and other Congresspersons were evacuated to a secure location. She may have been frightened when a Capitol Police Officer came to her office and asked : " Where is she ? ". It quickly became apparent he was no threat and was there to evacuate her. Which he did. She DID say that Cruz "tried to have me murdered " . She is not alone in exaggerating her personal experience.

Eric Stoner
02-04-2021, 11:13 AM
this is incorrect. You are using the term republicans as if it applies to our American version of that word. Very weird, like words don’t have meaning... he fought with the anarchists.

you are correct that he was against Leninism/stalinism many on the left were and are.

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it
- “Why I Write” George Orwell (1946)

Oh dear. Back to the history books. The REPUBLICANS during the Spanish Civil War were supporters of the the elected leftist government of Spain. That is what they called themselves; how others referred to them and how they have gone down in history. They included Communists , Socialists , Anarchists and liberals of varying stripes who thought they were fighting for freedom and elected democracy. The Nationalists included monarchists ; fascists ; Phalangists ; Conservatives and Catholics . The War started when Franco's Moroccan Army revolted and was flown to mainland Spain in Italian and German airplanes.
Orwell was a leftist and fought for the REPUBLICANS. He left Spain in disgust after the behavior of the Spanish Communists. Their church burning and murder of priests and nuns ( among many others ) was bad enough. Orwell didn't like being spied on by the Communists; being accused of being a traitor and how the Communists did not tolerate free speech or any dissent. Orwell evolved to be a life-long and dedicated Social Democrat.

kamiliam
02-04-2021, 11:47 AM
Oh dear. Back to the history books. The REPUBLICANS during the Spanish Civil War were supporters of the the elected leftist government of Spain. That is what they called themselves; how others referred to them and how they have gone down in history. They included Communists , Socialists , Anarchists and liberals of varying stripes who thought they were fighting for freedom and elected democracy. The Nationalists included monarchists ; fascists ; Phalangists ; Conservatives and Catholics . The War started when Franco's Moroccan Army revolted and was flown to mainland Spain in Italian and German airplanes.
Orwell was a leftist and fought for the REPUBLICANS. He left Spain in disgust after the behavior of the Spanish Communists. Their church burning and murder of priests and nuns ( among many others ) was bad enough. Orwell didn't like being spied on by the Communists; being accused of being a traitor and how the Communists did not tolerate free speech or any dissent. Orwell evolved to be a life-long and dedicated Social Democrat.


there is no back to the history books, I own plenty.

I was commenting on your word choice.

it is funny to me that you rant about BLM and Antifa, but Orwell’s ideas are more closely aligned to that movement rather then the Stalinist USSR type that is implied by your posts. You choose to ignore the variety of thought on the left and take his criticism of totalitarianism to mean anti communist. He represents the anarchistic left. He was always anti fascist and academically a Fascist movement is always conservative. An authoritarian government can be to the left (the soviets) or right.

Also snowball is the closet representation of his personal political beliefs in animal farm

Eric Stoner
02-04-2021, 12:09 PM
I think Orwell would be repulsed by AntiFa's behavior and some , repeat SOME BLM extremists.

eagle2
02-04-2021, 01:19 PM
I am talking about the OFFICE of the POTUS. There are specific provisions dealing with Impeachment of the POTUS and NO OTHER OFFICIAL.

I am aware of the precedents you cite and others. NONE involved Impeachment of a POTUS.

Where in the Constitution does it say the President should be treated differently than other Civil Officers when it comes to impeachment, other than the Chief Justice would preside over the impeachment of the President?

Raziel
02-04-2021, 01:30 PM
That is not a nice word. It is out of favor to put it mildly. You may want to edit your post. Just a suggestion.

No, I specifically stated that I wasn't insulting actual retarded folks. They're MUCH smarter than these Qanon idiots.

dpacrkk
02-04-2021, 01:40 PM
Obviously, I did not make myself clear and I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. The grammar and syntax of a couple of your posts made them difficult for me to grasp.

Feel free to point out whenever this is confusing, in the past or future.


Since I THINK we are on the same wavelength, please tell me how you propose to "get rid of " alleged falsehoods ? And WHO do you propose should do the factchecking ? What sanctions ought there be if someone , somewhere writes something that is not true ?

You've asked before, albeit in the context of social media, and I've answered:


Give people some limited number of opportunities to retract their claims when it's been proven to be factually incorrect, but if they don't comply get rid of any and all habitual liars. We had nearly five years of repeated lying since the 2016 primary; maybe the division wouldn't be as bad if people didn't fall for obvious garbage or Googled for 10 seconds instead of being happy to confirm their biases and get outraged (this applies to both major parties).


Does intent play any role in your scheme of enforced truthiness ? ( I'm sorry but that word dates back to when Colbert was actually funny on The Daily Show and I just can't resist lol. )... Most of the posters did not intentionally post anything that wasn't true. Not afaik. More and better info was posted and we were able to get closer to the truth. What's wrong with that ? Good speech has historically driven bad speech out of the marketplace of ideas.


Intent shouldn't matter. But intentionally spreading disinformation is obviously worse.

Anyway, a correction is never "more and better" info, it's just info. The word "more" implies "additional," and the original claims were never information in the first place, rather disinformation. For example, it was never at any point "information" that the election was fraudulent, therefore it wasn't resolved by more information, it was resolved by information that was true all along and just not accepted by people of a certain faction. Forgetting the semantics of "more," within 24 days of the general election, Twitter flagged over 200 of Trump's tweets as disinformation. This is your aforementioned "more and better" information, yet it didn't matter. People still dig their heels into the incorrect claim that it was fraudulent. "Good speech" didn't drive "bad speech out."


If we applied the standard that I THINK ( not sure ; please feel free to correct me ) you are arguing for then half the posts in this forum could potentially be covered.

Imagine if the claims you've made in this thread that you've since admitted were incorrect (don't bother asking which ones) were verified. Why would that be bad?


How exactly do you intend to differentiate between facts and opinions and variants of both ?

Hi:


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.


Confirmed reports that AOC lied or at least exaggerated the threat to her personally are all over the Internet. Contrary to her 90 minute Zoom recounting of her experience she was NOT in the Capitol building at the time. She said so. She said she was in "her office ". However, she and other Congresspersons were evacuated to a secure location. She may have been frightened when a Capitol Police Officer came to her office and asked : " Where is she ? ". It quickly became apparent he was no threat and was there to evacuate her. Which he did. She DID say that Cruz "tried to have me murdered " . She is not alone in exaggerating her personal experience.

She claimed she was in her office. Her office is in the Cannon House, not the main Capitol building. Therefore she never claimed to be in the main Capitol building. If she said she was in "her office" and you took that to mean she was in the Capitol building, then you drew an incorrect conclusion or were led to conclude something incorrect (again). And the Cannon House was also evacuated. None of this seems to contradict facts because she didn't say she was in the Capitol building. If only there was a way to stop those outlets from purposefully misleading you with disinformation, right? By the way, you could have figured this out by Googling to find fact checking on this. Are you still trying to tell us that fact checking is sufficient?


I am talking about the OFFICE of the POTUS. There are specific provisions dealing with Impeachment of the POTUS and NO OTHER OFFICIAL.

I am aware of the precedents you cite and others. NONE involved Impeachment of a POTUS.

Well, there's precedent for it happening to a POTUS now that the measure to declare it unconstitutional was defeated 55-45.

kamiliam
02-04-2021, 03:05 PM
No, I specifically stated that I wasn't insulting actual retarded folks. They're MUCH smarter than these Qanon idiots.
It just really isn’t a good word to use

Raziel
02-04-2021, 03:18 PM
It just really isn’t a good word to use

OK, then I retract it, since you asked. But I do not modify nor delete my posts, even if they make me look stupid. I am whom I am.

Eric Stoner
02-05-2021, 09:00 AM
Where in the Constitution does it say the President should be treated differently than other Civil Officers when it comes to impeachment, other than the Chief Justice would preside over the impeachment of the President?

BINGO ! That's right. Article I , Section 3 clearly says that when the President ( NOT a FORMER President ) is tried in the Senate the " Chief Justice SHALL preside ".

Article II , Section 4 clearly says that anyone "Impeached and convicted "shall be removed from office " AND disqualified from holding future offices. Not removed OR disqualified. Removed AND disqualified. Removal is automatic on conviction. No separate vote is required. Trump is a FORMER President. There is no office to remove him from. The sole purpose of impeachment is to remove a SITTING President. Plus there are Constitutional provisions proscribing Bills Of Attainder and prohibiting Ex Post Facto laws. What is the current Impeachment if not an attempt to punish Trump AFTER THE FACT ? It is obvious that the only reason for the current Impeachment is to try and disqualify Trump from ever serving again. A laudable goal imo but it can't be done Constitutionally. Just as bad , Senator Leahy is improperly presiding. Leaving aside the fact that he has said he will vote to convict ; that he is NOT the Chief Justice how is fundamental fairness ( a bedrock of the Bill Of Rights ) served by having a juror also serve as the presiding judge ? ! ? !

Eric Stoner
02-05-2021, 09:13 AM
Feel free to point out whenever this is confusing, in the past or future.



You've asked before, albeit in the context of social media, and I've answered:





Intent shouldn't matter. But intentionally spreading disinformation is obviously worse.

Anyway, a correction is never "more and better" info, it's just info. The word "more" implies "additional," and the original claims were never information in the first place, rather disinformation. For example, it was never at any point "information" that the election was fraudulent, therefore it wasn't resolved by more information, it was resolved by information that was true all along and just not accepted by people of a certain faction. Forgetting the semantics of "more," within 24 days of the general election, Twitter flagged over 200 of Trump's tweets as disinformation. This is your aforementioned "more and better" information, yet it didn't matter. People still dig their heels into the incorrect claim that it was fraudulent. "Good speech" didn't drive "bad speech out."



Imagine if the claims you've made in this thread that you've since admitted were incorrect (don't bother asking which ones) were verified. Why would that be bad?



Hi:





She claimed she was in her office. Her office is in the Cannon House, not the main Capitol building. Therefore she never claimed to be in the main Capitol building. If she said she was in "her office" and you took that to mean she was in the Capitol building, then you drew an incorrect conclusion or were led to conclude something incorrect (again). And the Cannon House was also evacuated. None of this seems to contradict facts because she didn't say she was in the Capitol building. If only there was a way to stop those outlets from purposefully misleading you with disinformation, right? By the way, you could have figured this out by Googling to find fact checking on this. Are you still trying to tell us that fact checking is sufficient?



Well, there's precedent for it happening to a POTUS now that the measure to declare it unconstitutional was defeated 55-45.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. My ideas of Free Speech and yours are diametrically opposed. Obviously you think that ideas you don't like or agree with ought to be gotten "rid of " based on what you claim is their "falsehood". You think someone ought to have the power to determine truth and then take action to purify the public realm and punish any polluters. Not only do I categorically reject any such premise ( I can't think of anyone qualified and impartial enough to do it ) but so does the First Amendment. Thank God.

I am sorry but some of your ideas constitute a back door to totalitarian thought and speech control. What if the "WRONG" people got into positions of power and started using truth and falsity as the excuse to suppress ideas that you DO like and DO agree with ? You are arguing for laying the groundwork for something exactly like that to happen. How do you think the Nazis did it ? The Soviets (and now the Chinese and Putin ) loved to go after people they didn't like and charge them with "libel and slander " against the state ; against the Revolution etc. The Shah of Iran made it an offense to "insult him ". In this country we had the Alien and Sedition Acts. Bringing them back would certainly serve your purposes.

dpacrkk
02-05-2021, 09:56 AM
My ideas of Free Speech and yours are diametrically opposed. Obviously you think that ideas you don't like or agree with ought to be gotten "rid of " based on what you claim is their "falsehood". You think someone ought to have the power to determine truth and then take action to purify the public realm and punish any polluters.

When have I ever posted anything hinting this? The truth is not concerned with whom agrees nor disagrees. The truth doesn't have sides. It's completely objective. There is misinformation spread by members of both major parties, and my response has consistently been "treat both equally." Claims that Putin has compromising information about Trump (believed by a faction of the left) should be treated the same as claims of election fraud (believed by a faction of the right).

I have viewpoints that are supported individually by members of the majority of each of the major parties. But the truth isn't a viewpoint, it's immutable fact. It is revealing that you try to use identity politics here though. Hilariously enough, at least one of my posts led other posters here to think I'm on the right.


What if the "WRONG" people got into positions of power and started using truth and falsity as the excuse to suppress ideas that you DO like and DO agree with ?

What if a meteor landed on everyone that claimed there was election fraud? That's why we don't use "what if" arguments in debate. But to humor you: the wrong people are already in power. Many don't care about party or country, they care about staying in power to reap the benefits. And part of that is pandering to these people that will believe anything.


You are arguing for laying the groundwork for something exactly like that to happen.

No I am not. My posts were in reference to social media platforms like Twitter and the web services providers. Are they (Twitter, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc) suddenly part of the US government now or private companies? Don't bother with the "but they act like public utilities" crap.

Eric Stoner
02-05-2021, 10:39 AM
When have I ever posted anything hinting this? The truth is not concerned with whom agrees nor disagrees. The truth doesn't have sides. It's completely objective. There is misinformation spread by members of both major parties, and my response has consistently been "treat both equally." Claims that Putin has compromising information about Trump (believed by a faction of the left) should be treated the same as claims of election fraud (believed by a faction of the right).

I have viewpoints that are supported individually by members of the majority of each of the major parties. But the truth isn't a viewpoint, it's immutable fact. It is revealing that you try to use identity politics here though. Hilariously enough, at least one of my posts led other posters here to think I'm on the right.



What if a meteor landed on everyone that claimed there was election fraud? That's why we don't use "what if" arguments in debate. But to humor you: the wrong people are already in power. Many don't care about party or country, they care about staying in power to reap the benefits. And part of that is pandering to these people that will believe anything.



No I am not. My posts were in reference to social media platforms like Twitter and the web services providers. Are they (Twitter, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc) suddenly part of the US government now or private companies? Don't bother with the "but they act like public utilities" crap.

OK. Your response was slightly reassuring. Perhaps I am reading some of your stuff too broadly.

You are right there is objective truth. Gravity is objective ; so are the actions of the sun and the Earth. Aside from hard science , objectivity varies. That's how life works and the world operates. Very little in the overall cosmos is certain. Mostly
it boils down to questions of likelihood ; probability vs. possibility. Just because an idea represents the "majority" view does not entitle it to greater worth. You yourself argue for truth. A LOT of majority views throughout history were later proven to be false ; of little worth or were replaced by other ideas. Separate But Equal used to be a "majority " view. To cite just one example. People used to believe the sun rotated around the Earth.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to protect "minority " speech and ideas. Especially ideas that are NOT popular ; that most people do not like or agree with.

I don't know where you learned debate but "what if " questions aka hypotheticals are both permitted and acceptable.

As for the power and influence of social media I think you accept that they do have such power ? Please correct me if I'm mistaken. My question is : Ought they have the power to control public forums and determine what ideas are acceptable and which are not ? If they were just trimming at the margins to remove or suppress the worst of the worst ( what the Supreme Court referred to in another context as devoid of any socially redeeming value ) I wouldn't like it but would not be particularly alarmed.

This issue is not going to go away. Our society has to decide if it wants unelected entities with admitted and clear political and ideological biases to be the decider of what we get to read and where.

Btw, your claim that I somehow use "identity politics" is bizarre. Nobody on this board has argued against identity politics more than me. What are you referring to ?

Raziel
02-05-2021, 07:11 PM
Gravity is objective

No offense, dude, but how the fuck does that work? Gravity is objective? What if I reject Gravity, does that mean I start floating? LMAO!

I'm just teasing ya. I know you weren't actually saying that, just thought I'd have a little fun with ya.

eagle2
02-05-2021, 11:54 PM
The short answer to your question is because I do not see anything Trump has done as "horrific". I do not see him as the monster that you do. I differentiate between his rhetoric and his policies. I don't think his immigration policy is racist. I don't see the detention facilities as intentionally inhumane. Imperfect , yes. But I have just as much sympathy for someone who loses their job to an illegal immigrant or gets their wages held down because of illegal immigration. You seem to have none for such people. I don't blame Trump for a lot of the ills that you want to hold him responsible for. Just like how I didn't blame Bernie when one of his supporters shot Scalise.


As I've been saying, you refuse to see Trump for who he is. Calling him names doesn't change the fact that you defend everything he does. If referring to Mexican immigrants as rapists, murderers, and drug dealers; and equating immigrants from Central America with vermin (infestations) isn't racist, I don't know what is.

Here's a description of how people, including children, were being held in Trump's detention centers:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/border-facilities/593239/



Americans have again recoiled in shock and horror over the past few weeks as observers who visited immigration detention facilities in the Southwest reported that children were being held in cruelly austere conditions. These observers told the press that the children at a facility in Clint, Texas, were sleeping on concrete floors and being denied soap and toothpaste. They described “children as young as 7 and 8, many of them wearing clothes caked with snot and tears … caring for infants they’ve just met.” A visiting doctor called the detention centers “torture facilities.” At least seven children have died in U.S. custody in the past year, compared with none in the 10 years prior. More than 11,000* children are now being held by the U.S. government on any given day. As if these conditions were insufficiently punitive, the administration has canceled recreational activities, an act that, like the conditions themselves, likely violates the law.

At a processing center in El Paso, Texas, 900 migrants were “being held at a facility designed for 125. In some cases, cells designed for 35 people were holding 155 people,” The New York Times reported. One observer described the facility to Texas Monthly as a “human dog pound.” The government’s own investigators have found detainees in facilities run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement being fed expired food at detention facilities, “nooses in detainee cells,” “inadequate medical care,” and “unsafe and unhealthy conditions.” An early-July inspector-general report found “dangerous overcrowding” in some Border Patrol facilities and included pictures of people crowded together like human cargo. More than 50,000 people are being held in facilities run by ICE, and something close to 20,000 in facilities run by Customs and Border Protection, and more than 11,000 children in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services.* (The government describes them as “unaccompanied,” a label immigration advocates say is misleading because many were separated by the government from the relative who brought them) Some of the people detained by the U.S. government have entered the United States illegally or overstayed their visas; some are simply seeking to exercise their legal right to asylum.


Who's losing their jobs to illegal immigrants? The unemployment rate was 3.5% before the pandemic. 83% of building contractors reported moderate to high levels of difficulty in finding workers. Trump's immigration policies have contributed to this.

https://youtu.be/hU4rp-efn-I?t=186



While he should not be threatened ( or his family ) I am fed up with Fauci and have been for quite a while. He repeatedly LIED ( and later admitted doing so ) and made serious errors throughout the Covid crisis. I am even angrier with Cuomo , Murphy and their fellow Governors who ordered nursing homes to admit Covid positive patients when they KNEW the nursing homes did not have enough trained personnel or equipment to prevent spreading infection. At the time Cuomo had an entire hospital ship that mostly went unused. In short , nobody has spoken out against threats and violence more than me.


But you're okay with all of the lies Trump told about coronavirus, and everything Trump did to make the pandemic much worse?



Trump didn't mail bombs to anyone. He didn't threaten any reporters. Again, I oppose all threats and violence.


What difference does it make whether Trump did it himself, or incited someone else to do it?

dpacrkk
02-07-2021, 11:27 AM
Aside from hard science , objectivity varies. That's how life works and the world operates. Very little in the overall cosmos is certain. Mostly
it boils down to questions of likelihood ; probability vs. possibility. Just because an idea represents the "majority" view does not entitle it to greater worth. You yourself argue for truth. A LOT of majority views throughout history were later proven to be false ; of little worth or were replaced by other ideas. Separate But Equal used to be a "majority " view. To cite just one example. People used to believe the sun rotated around the Earth. Just because an idea represents the "majority" view does not entitle it to greater worth. You yourself argue for truth. A LOT of majority views throughout history were later proven to be false ; of little worth or were replaced by other ideas. Separate But Equal used to be a "majority " view. To cite just one example. People used to believe the sun rotated around the Earth.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to protect "minority " speech and ideas. Especially ideas that are NOT popular ; that most people do not like or agree with.

I mostly agree, but science is meant to be made of statements that can be tested and predictions based on what we know at a given point in time. I also never claimed that the majority view dictates truth. Facts are not concerned with popular demand. Your example of the separate but equal doctrine is subjective. Your example of the heliocentric model is an instance of the aforementioned definition of science: The geocentric model was predicted given what people before the Renaissance knew. Later, evidence of the heliocentric model led to further understanding and a revision of the previous view. This is being incorrect. It is completely different from lying by continually making debunked statements like "there were more votes cast than voters," or "voting machines deleted votes and counted other votes multiple times."


I don't know where you learned debate but "what if " questions aka hypotheticals are both permitted and acceptable.

"But to humor you: the wrong people are already in power. Many don't care about party or country, they care about staying in power to reap the benefits. And part of that is pandering to these people that will believe anything."


As for the power and influence of social media I think you accept that they do have such power ? Please correct me if I'm mistaken. My question is : Ought they have the power to control public forums and determine what ideas are acceptable and which are not ?

This question is based on a false premise: they're moderating their own private forums.


This issue is not going to go away. Our society has to decide if it wants an unelected entities with admitted and clear political and ideological biases to be the decider of what we get to read and where.

Is this any different from existing media companies showing or omitting stories to advance different agendas? And is this worse for media companies with "News" in their respective names spreading outright lies while claiming their purpose is entertainment?


Btw, your claim that I somehow use "identity politics" is bizarre. Nobody on this board has argued against identity politics more than me. What are you referring to ?

You make statements that try to correlate viewpoints with what you think my political views are. And you imply that I only have these thoughts because the "other side" is getting adversely affected. But I've never had the "own the [libs or cons?]" attitude. I'm not even either. And truth is agnostic of political spectra.

Eric Stoner
02-08-2021, 09:32 AM
As I've been saying, you refuse to see Trump for who he is. Calling him names doesn't change the fact that you defend everything he does. If referring to Mexican immigrants as rapists, murderers, and drug dealers; and equating immigrants from Central America with vermin (infestations) isn't racist, I don't know what is.

Here's a description of how people, including children, were being held in Trump's detention centers:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/border-facilities/593239/



Who's losing their jobs to illegal immigrants? The unemployment rate was 3.5% before the pandemic. 83% of building contractors reported moderate to high levels of difficulty in finding workers. Trump's immigration policies have contributed to this.

https://youtu.be/hU4rp-efn-I?t=186



But you're okay with all of the lies Trump told about coronavirus, and everything Trump did to make the pandemic much worse?



What difference does it make whether Trump did it himself, or incited someone else to do it?

Eagle- We get it. Trump is a monster because of how some illegal immigrant children were treated. They weren't taken to Disney World ; didn't get teddy bears or Snuggies . You have beaten this issue to death. On a par with Sean "Dead Horse . Broken Record " Hannity.

7 children out of a total of MORE than 11,000 died in custody ? How does that compare with the death rate in their native countries ? A total of 24 immigrants of all ages died in ICE custody during the 4 years Trump was POTUS. Out of millions border and other detainees. In 2020 over 300,000 minors were detained. Both unaccompanied and those who were detained with their families. So now it is 7 out of 300,000. Considering the disease ridden slums and villages they came from with inadequate sanitation , clean water and medical care some can argue that they were better off in ICE custody. I have posted that the detention facilities used were inadequate. They were NOT as inhumane as you would like to believe.

Trump was just as bad as Cuomo , Murphy and FAUCI. All of whom lied. All of whom made bad decisions concerning Covid.

The point of all this is what ? That Trump is so terrible that it is OK to run roughshod over the Constitution so long as he can never run for office again ? I agree , I Agree , I AGREE ! that Trump never running for office ever again is a good thing. I just want him to be disqualified Constitutionally.

As disgusting and disgraceful as Trump's post-Election behavior was ; as stupid as the January 6 Rally was , the fact remains that Trump did NOT say the magic words. Telling the rally attendees to "fight like hell " and/or telling them to "peacefully and patriotically " make their voices heard or even to go over to the Capitol is NOT incitement to riot and insurrection. There was NO explicit direction or exhortation to break the law. We can argue this for a month. I have clear Supreme Court precedents dealing with what are and are not "fighting words" ; seditious speech and incitement on my side of the argument. Trump's words did not come close. We AGREE the rally never should have happened in the first place. That it was pointless and I'll go so far as to say it was asking for trouble. It MIGHT be worse if , repeat IF, Trump had been briefed that far right groups planning violence and /or planning to storm the Capitol were going to attend. So far there is no evidence ( Zero, Zip , Nada ) that he was told any such thing. The Capitol Police and reportedly Pelosi were so briefed. So were the D.C. Police.
The National Guard was alerted and on standby but nobody gave the order to deploy them until it was too late. It is very easy for those who had immediate on the ground responsibility for securing the Capitol and who failed in their duty to now
let Trump get all the blame. I'll go further. Assume Trump was briefed and told: " this rally is an explosion just waiting to go off ; there WILL be violence ; they WILL attack the Capitol". So what ? Trump is no longer President. Would it have been a crime at the time ? Doubtful. Criminal negligence maybe. Would it have been impeachable ? Probably. IF he were still the POTUS. He's not.

Eric Stoner
02-08-2021, 09:45 AM
I mostly agree, but science is meant to be made of statements that can be tested and predictions based on what we know at a given point in time. I also never claimed that the majority view dictates truth. Facts are not concerned with popular demand. Your example of the separate but equal doctrine is subjective. Your example of the heliocentric model is an instance of the aforementioned definition of science: The geocentric model was predicted given what people before the Renaissance knew. Later, evidence of the heliocentric model led to further understanding and a revision of the previous view. This is being incorrect. It is completely different from lying by continually making debunked statements like "there were more votes cast than voters," or "voting machines deleted votes and counted other votes multiple times."



"But to humor you: the wrong people are already in power. Many don't care about party or country, they care about staying in power to reap the benefits. And part of that is pandering to these people that will believe anything."



This question is based on a false premise: they're moderating their own private forums.



Is this any different from existing media companies showing or omitting stories to advance different agendas? And is this worse for media companies with "News" in their respective names spreading outright lies while claiming their purpose is entertainment?



You make statements that try to correlate viewpoints with what you think my political views are. And you imply that I only have these thoughts because the "other side" is getting adversely affected. But I've never had the "own the [libs or cons?]" attitude. I'm not even either. And truth is agnostic of political spectra.

I chose the Copernican Theory as an example BECAUSE it was suppressed by the Catholic Church. It WAS KNOWN at the time. Galileo was forced to recant his adoption of the theory in his work and was kept under admittedly benign house arrest as a result. YOUR examples are tricky. There WERE more votes cast in 2020 than there were registered voters. Various court decisions and consent orders radically expanded early voting and vote by mail. That was ALL TRUE. What was NOT proven were that "dead people voted" beyond a few isolated cases. Most were cases where the ballot got mailed in and THEN the voter died i.e. nothing improper. Or that "improperly registered people voted" . Not in large enough numbers to affect the result in a single state i.e. some people who were not properly registered voted BUT they were either covered by a court decision or consent order permitting them to do so or their numbers were too small to affect a single state's vote totals. Most of it was a reaction to Covid. In Georgia there were less than 2,000 such voters according to the Republican Governor and Secretary of State. A LOT of it occurred in states where Trump or Biden won handily. So what ?

Whether Twitter or Facebook are "private" or "public" forums IS the issue. In the abstract they are private. Practical reality has made them public forums and essential to political speech.

eagle2
02-08-2021, 06:46 PM
Eagle- We get it. Trump is a monster because of how some illegal immigrant children were treated. They weren't taken to Disney World ; didn't get teddy bears or Snuggies . You have beaten this issue to death. On a par with Sean "Dead Horse . Broken Record " Hannity.

7 children out of a total of MORE than 11,000 died in custody ? How does that compare with the death rate in their native countries ? A total of 24 immigrants of all ages died in ICE custody during the 4 years Trump was POTUS. Out of millions border and other detainees. In 2020 over 300,000 minors were detained. Both unaccompanied and those who were detained with their families. So now it is 7 out of 300,000. Considering the disease ridden slums and villages they came from with inadequate sanitation , clean water and medical care some can argue that they were better off in ICE custody. I have posted that the detention facilities used were inadequate. They were NOT as inhumane as you would like to believe.

Trump was just as bad as Cuomo , Murphy and FAUCI. All of whom lied. All of whom made bad decisions concerning Covid.

The point of all this is what ? That Trump is so terrible that it is OK to run roughshod over the Constitution so long as he can never run for office again ? I agree , I Agree , I AGREE ! that Trump never running for office ever again is a good thing. I just want him to be disqualified Constitutionally.

As disgusting and disgraceful as Trump's post-Election behavior was ; as stupid as the January 6 Rally was , the fact remains that Trump did NOT say the magic words. Telling the rally attendees to "fight like hell " and/or telling them to "peacefully and patriotically " make their voices heard or even to go over to the Capitol is NOT incitement to riot and insurrection. There was NO explicit direction or exhortation to break the law. We can argue this for a month. I have clear Supreme Court precedents dealing with what are and are not "fighting words" ; seditious speech and incitement on my side of the argument. Trump's words did not come close. We AGREE the rally never should have happened in the first place. That it was pointless and I'll go so far as to say it was asking for trouble. It MIGHT be worse if , repeat IF, Trump had been briefed that far right groups planning violence and /or planning to storm the Capitol were going to attend. So far there is no evidence ( Zero, /Zip , Nada ) that he was told any such thing. The Capitol Police and reportedly Pelosi were so briefed. So were the D.C. Police.
The National Guard was alerted and on standby but nobody gave the order to deploy them until it was too late. It is very easy for those who had immediate on the ground responsibility for securing the Capitol and who failed in their duty to now
let Trump get all the blame. I'll go further. Assume Trump was briefed and told: " this rally is an explosion just waiting to go off ; there WILL be violence ; they WILL attack the Capitol". So what ? Trump is no longer President. Would it have been a crime at the time ? Doubtful. Criminal negligence maybe. Would it have been impeachable ? Probably. IF he were still the POTUS. He's not.

You're using impoverished 3rd world countries as the standard as to how the US should treat children? Zero children in detention died during the 8 years Obama was in office. If a loved one in your family had her children forcibly removed from her, without even telling her where they were taken or how long it would be before she could see them, you would feel very differently.

Trump was far worse than Cuomo , Murphy and Fauci. Cuomo and Murphy waited too long to take the appropriate measures, but after they saw how bad it was, they took strong action. Throughout the pandemic, Trump opposed any and every measure taken to try to prevent the virus from spreading, and even held one event after another, without taking any of the recommended safety precautions.

Where did you go to law school? How many years have you studied constitutional law? Charles J. Cooper, a conservative constitutional attorney, says it IS constitutional to impeach a president after he leaves office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cooper-trump-impeachment/2021/02/08/1fc83bb2-6a14-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html



In the op-ed, Cooper points to a provision of the Constitution that states: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“The trial’s opponents argue that because this provision requires removal, and because only incumbent officers can be removed, it follows that only incumbent officers can be impeached and tried,” he wrote. “But the provision cuts against their interpretation. It simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a ‘mandatory minimum’ punishment.”

He wrote that the argument would be “compelling” if removal from office were the only punishment, adding that the Constitution allows the Senate to disqualify those convicted of impeachable offenses from holding office again.

“Given that the Constitution permits the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former officeholders, it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders,” Cooper said.


It's not just what Trump said at the rally. It's what he's been saying for the previous three or four months. Even before the election, he was insisting that if he lost, it's because the election was rigged. At the presidential debate, he told the Proud Boys to "stand down and stand by". Then after the election, he was repeatedly stating the same lie, that the election was stolen. When the rioting was happening, he refused to make a statement calling for them to stop, for hours, and he told the terrorists, they were special and he loves them. According to the people who were with him at the time, Trump was delighted to see what was going on, and couldn't understand why others weren't.

You keep saying you don't like Trump, but you minimize everything he does and consistently oppose doing anything about him.

dpacrkk
02-08-2021, 07:22 PM
I chose the Copernican Theory as an example BECAUSE it was suppressed by the Catholic Church. It WAS KNOWN at the time. Galileo was forced to recant his adoption of the theory in his work and was kept under admittedly benign house arrest as a result.

Sure. "Is this any different from existing media companies showing or omitting stories to advance different agendas? And is this worse for media companies with 'News' in their respective names spreading outright lies while claiming their purpose is entertainment?"


YOUR examples are tricky. There WERE more votes cast in 2020 than there were registered voters... So what ?

This was in reference to the various claims that the difference between votes and registered voters in MI and PA numbered hundreds of thousands. As for "so what:" despite that claim having been debunked, pundits repeated this lie for months. People ate it up regardless of how many annotations and fact checking sites showed this was not true. The point is being mistakenly wrong is not the same as knowing the truth and disseminating lies.

You also didn't address the outright lies about voting machines.


Whether Twitter or Facebook are "private" or "public" forums IS the issue. In the abstract they are private. Practical reality has made them public forums and essential to political speech.

You're being intentionally obtuse again. Their respectively popularities does not magically change them from being private to public. Maybe you wish they were public entities, but they currently are not, no matter how much you want them to be, and no matter how many irrelevant criteria you apply. And honestly, your take is incredibly entitled and hypocritical coming from the side of political spectrum that frequently states "the free market will regulate itself." Your argument is basically "I want a government that does not respect freedom of association that can, at any time and for any reason, give use of any organization's private property to anyone that suits my needs." Even after all that "but muh freedomz!" crap, you want to trample on these private companies' freedoms when they owe us nothing.

Eric Stoner
02-09-2021, 09:01 AM
Sure. "Is this any different from existing media companies showing or omitting stories to advance different agendas? And is this worse for media companies with 'News' in their respective names spreading outright lies while claiming their purpose is entertainment?"



This was in reference to the various claims that the difference between votes and registered voters in MI and PA numbered hundreds of thousands. As for "so what:" despite that claim having been debunked, pundits repeated this lie for months. People ate it up regardless of how many annotations and fact checking sites showed this was not true. The point is being mistakenly wrong is not the same as knowing the truth and disseminating lies.

You also didn't address the outright lies about voting machines.



You're being intentionally obtuse again. Their respectively popularities does not magically change them from being private to public. Maybe you wish they were public entities, but they currently are not, no matter how much you want them to be, and no matter how many irrelevant criteria you apply. And honestly, your take is incredibly entitled and hypocritical coming from the side of political spectrum that frequently states "the free market will regulate itself." Your argument is basically "I want a government that does not respect freedom of association that can, at any time and for any reason, give use of any organization's private property to anyone that suits my needs." Even after all that "but muh freedomz!" crap, you want to trample on these private companies' freedoms when they owe us nothing.

You are obviously talking about Fox News and Newsmax. The latter is almost ALL opinion. Fox has a split between the News people who played it straight and reported the facts and their resident pundits. Fox News was calling states for Biden before some of the other networks. I don't like Hannity. Never did and don't like the way he is little more than a trained parrot for Trump. Along with Dobbs and Pirro he perpetuated the myth that the election was stolen using inter alia rigged voting machines. Every time the ghoulish Giuliani and Sidney Powell were told by a court to put up or shut up they crapped out. In contrast Ingraham and Carlson both said Biden won and moved on. Neither has been named as a defendant in the $2.7 billion lawsuit filed against Fox.

Despite my being an "obtuse , entitled hypocrite " my position concerning Facebook and Twitter AND Google and AND Amazon was not thought out with just me in mind. I worry about a system where information is controlled by unelected entities. I don't want a doctrinaire dopehead like Dorsey deciding who gets to say what. Or an inexperienced narrow thinking nerd like Zuckerberg. Or the richest man in the world who already controls the Washington Post and Newsweek. ALL of whom enjoy immunity under Section 230. As to the rest of it we'll have to agree to disagree.

Btw, the word OBTUSE means "slow to understand ". I think I understand all too well. YOU are the one who intentionally confuses understanding and agreement.

Eric Stoner
02-09-2021, 09:22 AM
You're using impoverished 3rd world countries as the standard as to how the US should treat children? Zero children in detention died during the 8 years Obama was in office. If a loved one in your family had her children forcibly removed from her, without even telling her where they were taken or how long it would be before she could see them, you would feel very differently.

Trump was far worse than Cuomo , Murphy and Fauci. Cuomo and Murphy waited too long to take the appropriate measures, but after they saw how bad it was, they took strong action. Throughout the pandemic, Trump opposed any and every measure taken to try to prevent the virus from spreading, and even held one event after another, without taking any of the recommended safety precautions.

Where did you go to law school? How many years have you studied constitutional law? Charles J. Cooper, a conservative constitutional attorney, says it IS constitutional to impeach a president after he leaves office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cooper-trump-impeachment/2021/02/08/1fc83bb2-6a14-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html



It's not just what Trump said at the rally. It's what he's been saying for the previous three or four months. Even before the election, he was insisting that if he lost, it's because the election was rigged. At the presidential debate, he told the Proud Boys to "stand down and stand by". Then after the election, he was repeatedly stating the same lie, that the election was stolen. When the rioting was happening, he refused to make a statement calling for them to stop, for hours, and he told the terrorists, they were special and he loves them. According to the people who were with him at the time, Trump was delighted to see what was going on, and couldn't understand why others weren't.

You keep saying you don't like Trump, but you minimize everything he does and consistently oppose doing anything about him.

We have argued this past the point of being boring.

You are not going to like this but the U.S. responsibility for those trying to enter illegally is minimal. We more than meet international standards for humane detention. Were I a parent who tried to enter the country illegally I would hold MYSELF responsible for what happened to me and my children. I would know that detention in the U.S. is a lot better ; a lot more humane than facilities in Guatemala and Mexico. Both of whom would prosecute me for illegal entry .

Without getting biographical , I DO know a LOT more about the Constitution and Constitutional Law than you think I do. For every professor or attorney saying that the Senate can impeach and punish a FORMER President that are just as many who recognize what is going on for what it is : A POLITICAL effort to blame Trump, his supporters and the Republicans for the riot. Why hasn't the media pursued WHY Chief Justice Roberts refused to preside over Trump's trial ?

Read Byron York's latest column about all the legitimate questions he asked the Capitol Police and their refusal to answer. Did you know that there is NO EVIDENCE that Sicknick was killed during or as a result of the riot ? That's right. He was NOT hit in the head with the fire extinguisher. His union said he died from a stroke. His autopsy is unfinished and has not come up with a cause of death. 3 others died from natural causes and the the Capitol Police won't say who shot Ashley Babbitt, the woman who was killed. These are just a few of the unanswered questions that most of the mainstream media won't touch. I am not trying to minimize the riot or that people died. Only that the Dems rushed to judgement to make political hay without having all the facts.

I don't like Trump. I think he is a horse's ass and behaved accordingly. The problem is there is still a First Amendment that applies just as much to him as it does to AOC , Pelosi , Maxine and BLM. Since he is now a private citizen, if he is really guilty or responsible then Biden's Justice Department ought to investigate him ; indict him if there is probable cause and prosecute him for Sedition or incitement to riot , criminal conspiracy , reusing postage stamps or anything they like . Good luck to them. Instead the Dems want to vent and punish him for what are probably not crimes.

Worst of all is the precedent that would be set. Would you like to see Republicans impeaching Clinton again for things he did while he was President ? Better yet, how about if they tried to impeach Obama for improperly spying on Trump and maybe went after Biden for going along when he was V.P. ? Not as far fetched as you might like to think.

dpacrkk
02-09-2021, 10:19 AM
You are obviously talking about Fox News and Newsmax. The latter is almost ALL opinion. Fox has a split between the News people who played it straight and reported the facts and their resident pundits. I don't like Hannity. Never did and don't like the way he is little more than a trained parrot for Trump. Along with Dobbs and Pirro he perpetuated the myth that the election was stolen using inter alia rigged voting machines. Every time the ghoulish Giuliani and Sidney Powell were told by a court to put up or shut up they crapped out. In contrast Ingraham and Carlson both said Biden won and moved on. Neither has been named as a defendant in the $2.7 billion lawsuit filed against Fox.


Does reporting facts part of the time qualify them to spend the other time spent deliberately reporting misinformation as news instead of opinion? The voting machine comment was about many pundits, but mostly referenced the people and events leading up to the movie "Absolute Proof."


Despite my being an "obtuse , entitled hypocrite " my position concerning Facebook and Twitter AND Google and AND Amazon was not thought out with just me in mind. I worry about a system where information is controlled by unelected entities. I don't want a doctrinaire dopehead like Dorsey deciding who gets to say what. Or an inexperienced narrow thinking nerd like Zuckerberg. Or the richest man in the world who already controls the Washington Post and Newsweek. ALL of whom enjoy immunity under Section 230. As to the rst of it we'll have to agree to disagree.

It seems you are implying that after as the "nerds" create something, you want them to walk away from their own creations so you can use them any way you see fit and ignore their well-known terms of service. Well, there are plenty of platforms to fit your need of a mass outlet for any unchecked expression: Parler, Gab, Telegram, 8kun, etc. Don't be upset because they don't have the market share and/or engineering resilience. Also, nothing stops you from becoming or enlisting those "nerds" and starting your own competitor as well.

kamiliam
02-09-2021, 11:15 AM
Speaking of parler, they fired their ceo because he wanted to limit Q and the like. The powerful partisan Mercer family disagrees There is also the deal where trump’s reps met with parler executives to discuss owning 40% of Parler. That was in June, perhaps that is part of the reason conservatives started to care about 230. Under their dream reforms having a little closed off community where hate could fester would be great for recruitment. It won’t because eventually they will be sued or there will be another event like the 1/6 or Unite the right and shut down but conservatives don’t understand 230. The outed ceo understood that every website will have in their TOS language that prohibits violence, these groups eventually ALL go that path.
There is a lot of talk about social media being a public service, I don’t agree with that. But let’s say it is, isn’t there a greater responsibility then to quell hate speech and violence for the public good? That would be the death of a lot the conservative fringe sites.
https://www.axios.com/parler-ceo-trump-twitter-deal-22531319-3432-4799-ba51-8fab022b2f48.html

Eric Stoner
02-09-2021, 11:24 AM
WHO are you talking about ?

I can turn it around and show that CNN, MSNBC and the Big 3 Networks are just as bad. So what ?

You either refuse to acknowledge the power of platforms like Twitter and try to slap a veneer of " private property " over what have become public forums. If , IF Dorsey et al were even handed in applying their terms of service you would have a much better argument. The fact is they have done no such thing and have played favorites. For now, let them keep it up. There is already a building backlash that those platforms are not going to like. One of my concerns is that some in Congress will go too far . I don't want to see any message control or censorship beyond the wild extremes as I have posted about ad nauseum.

kamiliam
02-09-2021, 11:58 AM
Without getting biographical , I DO know a LOT more about the Constitution and Constitutional Law than you think I do. For every professor or attorney saying that the Senate can impeach and punish a FORMER President that are just as many who recognize what is going on for what it is : A POLITICAL effort to blame Trump, his supporters and the Republicans for the riot. Why hasn't the media pursued WHY Chief Justice Roberts refused to preside over Trump's trial ?

you don’t have to get biographical but could you list one active constitutional law expert who has this opinion that are still able to teach at non private universities. Hell you could have can throw in an expert at a think tank, even though they are then an employee representing their company. York is a political commentator.

you seem to think along the lines of people like bill barr who seem to believe that the president was intended to be special. That is not what I was taught. The mention of throwing a sitting president out of office was added because in the states they didn’t have it so the founders wanted at least some(ineffective) way to remove the president. Adding that did not remove the ability to convict a former president for crimes committed in office. If that is what the founders wanted they would have stated it.

dpacrkk
02-09-2021, 12:09 PM
WHO are you talking about ?

I can turn it around and show that CNN, MSNBC and the Big 3 Networks are just as bad. So what ?

I've addressed this whataboutism many times: "but they do it too" is not a good argument to not treat both equally.


You either refuse to acknowledge the power of platforms like Twitter and try to slap a veneer of " private property " over what have become public forums.

No, it's just that their "power" is completely irrelevant to their statuses as private companies. These platforms do not belong to the people. They are the exclusive property of private companies that own and operate them. This includes how the organizations allow and disallow allow their creations to be used. Maybe you think they should be public, but that does mean they are public.


If , IF Dorsey et al were even handed in applying their terms of service you would have a much better argument. The fact is they have done no such thing and have played favorites.

We showed you evidence that Twitter played favorites in favor of Trump with the @SuspendThePres and @realDonaldTrump accounts. So I will ask again: why is it that you never once posted about Trump receiving years of preferential treatment since the 2016 primary season, but are now up in arms over one month of what you view as disadvantageous treatment? How convenient!


For now, let them keep it up. There is already a building backlash that those platforms are not going to like. One of my concerns is that some in Congress will go too far . I don't want to see any message control or censorship beyond the wild extremes as I have posted about ad nauseum.

We'll have to wait for that backlash to result in something then. It's not our decision to make. And those extremes are subjective; people have their own limits. You admitted you are against people denying historical events, but completely support people disseminating disinformation about other events like the 2020 general election results. How convenient again!

Eric Stoner
02-09-2021, 12:33 PM
I've addressed this whataboutism many times: "but they do it too" is not a good argument to not treat both equally.



No, it's just that their "power" is completely irrelevant to their statuses as private companies. These platforms do not belong to the people. They are the exclusive property of private companies that own and operate them. This includes how the organizations allow and disallow allow their creations to be used. Maybe you think they should be public, but that does mean they are public.



We showed you evidence that Twitter played favorites in favor of Trump with the @SuspendThePres and @realDonaldTrump accounts. So I will ask again: why is it that you never once posted about Trump receiving years of preferential treatment since the 2016 primary season, but are now up in arms over one month of what you view as disadvantageous treatment? How convenient!



We'll have to wait for that backlash to result in something then. It's not our decision to make. And those extremes are subjective; people have their own limits. You admitted you are against people denying historical events, but completely support people disseminating disinformation about other events like the 2020 general election results. How convenient again!

Congratulations. You have just gotten an F in Reading Comprehension. I have NEVER supported knowing or intentional dissemination of incorrect or factually delinquent information. I've lost count of how many times I have posted that Trump and his supporters were FOS about the result of the Election.

dpacrkk
02-09-2021, 12:57 PM
Congratulations. You have just gotten an F in Reading Comprehension. I have NEVER supported knowing or intentional dissemination of incorrect or factually delinquent information. I've lost count of how many times I have posted that Trump and his supporters were FOS about the result of the Election.

So you only want to force private companies to enable the liars and also prevent them from imposing consequences, and you view this as distinctly different from supporting liars. I'm glad we sorted that out...

And good try evading every other point.

Eric Stoner
02-09-2021, 01:01 PM
you don’t have to get biographical but could you list one active constitutional law expert who has this opinion that are still able to teach at non private universities. Hell you could have can throw in an expert at a think tank, even though they are then an employee representing their company. York is a political commentator.

you seem to think along the lines of people like bill barr who seem to believe that the president was intended to be special. That is not what I was taught. The mention of throwing a sitting president out of office was added because in the states they didn’t have it so the founders wanted at least some(ineffective) way to remove the president. Adding that did not remove the ability to convict a former president for crimes committed in office. If that is what the founders wanted they would have stated it.

Byron York is respected columnist. I didn't cite him as anything resembling a Constitutional expert. His recent column that I cited called into serious question some , repeat SOME of the factual claims being made by the Impeachment Managers.

As for law professors expressing anything from serious reservations to outright opposition to Impeaching Trump NOW , they include Alan Dershowitz ( No Eagle - he is NOT a crackpot but a highly respected Constitutional lawyer . He's also written more books than you've probably read lol . Just kidding ); Ann Althouse Of the University Of Wisconsin who has described and explained how Roberts wanting nothing to do with the current farce makes it a nullity: Eugene Kontorovich of The Scalia Law School at George Mason who explains how and why it is dangerous to pursue FORMER Presidents with Impeachment ; Jonathan Turley of George Washington and Philip Bobbitt of Columbia.

I know all about the letter signed by 170 so-called law professors and Constitutional scholars who say that Impeachment is proper. First of all , academics are notoriously liberal and worse yet, believe in flexible interpretation of the Constitution. They too often ignore plain language and the Founder's intent to arrive at results that they like.

I understand the anger with Trump. I appreciate the sense of outrage at what a few nit-wits and nuts did at the Capitol. I have repeatedly posted that Trump's rally had no valid purpose whatsoever. I know about reports that Trump gleefully watched the assault . So far, not one person is willing to swear to it. It's nothing more than surmise and conjecture. Even after he is acquitted in the Senate , Trump is NOT home free. I have nothing against presenting evidence to a grand jury and indicting him for something. Exactly what is not at all clear but I won't shed a tear. There is no doubt that he did little to nothing to separate himself from extremists. He deserves to get tarred with the same brush. As long as it's legal and Constitutional it's fine with me.

kamiliam
02-09-2021, 02:48 PM
Byron York is respected columnist. I didn't cite him as anything resembling a Constitutional expert. His recent column that I cited called into serious question some , repeat SOME of the factual claims being made by the Impeachment Managers.

As for law professors expressing anything from serious reservations to outright opposition to Impeaching Trump NOW , they include Alan Dershowitz ( No Eagle - he is NOT a crackpot but a highly respected Constitutional lawyer . He's also written more books than you've probably read lol . Just kidding ); Ann Althouse Of the University Of Wisconsin who has described and explained how Roberts wanting nothing to do with the current farce makes it a nullity: Eugene Kontorovich of The Scalia Law School at George Mason who explains how and why it is dangerous to pursue FORMER Presidents with Impeachment ; Jonathan Turley of George Washington and Philip Bobbitt of Columbia.

I know all about the letter signed by 170 so-called law professors and Constitutional scholars who say that Impeachment is proper. First of all , academics are notoriously liberal and worse yet, believe in flexible interpretation of the Constitution. They too often ignore plain language and the Founder's intent to arrive at results that they like.

I understand the anger with Trump. I appreciate the sense of outrage at what a few nit-wits and nuts did at the Capitol. I have repeatedly posted that Trump's rally had no valid purpose whatsoever. I know about reports that Trump gleefully watched the assault . So far, not one person is willing to swear to it. It's nothing more than surmise and conjecture. Even after he is acquitted in the Senate , Trump is NOT home free. I have nothing against presenting evidence to a grand jury and indicting him for something. Exactly what is not at all clear but I won't shed a tear. There is no doubt that he did little to nothing to separate himself from extremists. He deserves to get tarred with the same brush. As long as it's legal and Constitutional it's fine with me.


Thank you, I will grant that everyone you listed other then Dershowitz is coming from an educated and informed place. Doesn’t mean I agree, I haven’t followed althouse lately but she is a centrist through and through, she doesn’t ever want to rock the boat. You will also find that their arguments are much more nuanced because they are academics. You added the point that academics are liberal, well what about all those people? I always had a conservative professor in constitutional law classes. They were often prominent voices in the departments I spent time in. I still turned out how I did because they knew enough about the subject to inform about the basics without distorting the source material, that comes later. I will say that most of these scholars are worried about a slippery slope type of situation, which is fair but it doesn’t take into account the obvious crimes trump committed, which most if given truth serum would admit is too far. Look at bill Barr

now Dershowitz is a whole other thing. It is amazing how such a free speech advocate loves to threaten to sue everyone. Either he loses or he never follows through for some reason. Has been in a legal battle with his Epstein accuser and despite this she has been legally allowed to make statements in media that he raped her. Also this article goes over his opinion during the first impeachment which despite being over very different charges, can still be rounded to “the president can’t do bad things”
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/02/03/alan-dershowitz-finds-himself-thrust-academes-margins (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/02/03/alan-dershowitz-finds-himself-thrust-academes-margins)


Also this is the level of knowledge his lawyers are bringing to the table. MSU professor cited in Trump’s own briefs has said he was misquoted multiple times.
https://mobile.twitter.com/profbriankalt/status/1358822179220189184

eagle2
02-09-2021, 04:11 PM
WHO are you talking about ?

I can turn it around and show that CNN, MSNBC and the Big 3 Networks are just as bad. So what ?

You either refuse to acknowledge the power of platforms like Twitter and try to slap a veneer of " private property " over what have become public forums. If , IF Dorsey et al were even handed in applying their terms of service you would have a much better argument. The fact is they have done no such thing and have played favorites. For now, let them keep it up. There is already a building backlash that those platforms are not going to like. One of my concerns is that some in Congress will go too far .

No they haven't. You're getting your information from dishonest sources. Nobody was banned from Twitter for their political views. They were banned for inciting violence that led to five people being killed. There is no legal basis for your argument that government should control how private businesses run their platforms.



I don't want to see any message control or censorship beyond the wild extremes as I have posted about ad nauseum.


Why should you be the one who decides what is allowable for Twitter to have posted on their platform, rather than Twitter?