What's new
By:

Kamala Harris for Pres

1726498689029.png

www.breitbart.com

Everything You Need to Know About Kamala in Her Own Words in One Place

Kamala Harris has given a single televised interview and no press conferences since becoming the Democrats’ nominee for president. Given the establishment media’s unprecedented blocking, tackling, and gaslighting (including the 9/10 debate), we’ve assembled over 100 videos of Kamala Harris in...
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

Some info so you guys can educate yourselves on how crappy she is before you screw over the country and vote for her.
 


Robert B. Reich: Trump’s hate is no joke​

Opinion by Robert B. Reich, Tribune Content Agency
• 4h • 4 min read

The second apparent attempt on Trump’s life — yesterday at his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida — occurred just over two months after he was wounded during an attempt on his life at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. “They’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you,” Trump said after the first attempt. “I’m just standing in the way".

“They” should not be coming after anyone. There is no place in our democracy for violence, nor for threats of violence.

Which brings me to Trump’s claim in last week’s debate that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are “eating the dogs … eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

It quickly became a vast internet joke, fueling thousands of hilarious memes and songs. But it’s no laughing matter. Trump’s claim has already provoked threats of violence.

Over the weekend, two hospitals in Springfield were locked down after bomb threats, police said. Other threats received by Springfield officials have forced government buildings to close, two elementary schools to be evacuated and the students moved to a different location, and a middle school to shut down altogether.

After JD Vance first began spreading baseless rumors about Haitians in Springfield, members of the neo-Nazi group “Blood Tribe” marched into the city carrying guns, wearing body armor, and carrying Neo-Nazi flags. At an Aug. 27 town hall meeting, one claimed that the city had been taken over by “degenerate third worlders,” blamed Jews for the influx, and warned that “crime and savagery will only increase with every Haitian you allow in.”


Robert Reich

Robert Reich© Provided by Tribune Content Agency


Springfield’s Haitian immigrants say they are afraid. Some have kept their children home from school, fearing violence. Others have reported harassment on the street, in their cars, and at stores. A Springfield family whose son died last year when the bus in which he was riding accidentally collided with a car driven by a Haitian immigrant has pleaded for Trump and Vance to stop using their deceased son for political purposes.

Yet Trump and JD Vance are doubling down. Yesterday, before the attempt on Trump’s life, Vance said on CNN that the claims about Haitians eating the pets of Springfield residents came from “firsthand accounts from my constituents.” When interviewer Dana Bash suggested that the claims had caused bomb threats, Vance called her a “Democratic propagandist.” But the connection is indisputable.

Rather than offhand comments, Trump’s and Vance’s claims are calculated. Trump’s last two posts on Truth Social before the debate were AI images of cats and ducks — one depicting cats in military fatigues carrying assault rifles and wearing MAGA hats, the other showing the candidate himself sitting on a plane amid a crowd of ducks and cats.

Trump is now talking about holding a rally in Springfield. “We’re going to get these people out,” Trump said in a Friday news conference. Although Springfield’s Haitian immigrants are in the United States legally, he promised to stage “the largest deportation in the history of our country” if reelected.

Trump’s and Vance’s claims are completely bogus. Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, told CBS News on Wednesday that “these Haitians came in here to work because there were jobs, and they filled a lot of jobs. And if you talk to employers, they’ve done a very, very good job and they work very, very hard.”

Another of Trump’s bogus claims is now threatening legal immigrants in Aurora, Colorado, a Denver suburb that Trump has repeatedly asserted is being “taken over” by Venezuelan criminals. “Simply not true,” Aurora’s Republican mayor and city council member wrote in a joint statement.

As in Springfield, Trump’s baseless claims are harming innocent people in Aurora. Immigrants there say they have been told their nationality makes them ineligible for jobs or housing. Trump’s claims have led to threats and drawn armed groups to the city, claiming to offer vigilante-style protection.

Trump and Vance are using the oldest of tyrannical ploys — fueling deep-seated fears by creating an “other” — depicted as subhuman — who “take over” towns and “devour” loved ones.

In Springfield, the loved ones are peoples’ pets. But how far is this bogus claim from vicious Nazi claims of Jews devouring children? Substitute “Jew” for “Haitian” in Springfield or for “Venezuelan” in Aurora, and you’re back to the Nazis of the 1930s.

In demonizing and dehumanizing migrants, Trump and Vance are not just seeking to win over a few wavering voters across the nation or making a play for control of the Senate. They are trying to scare America into becoming a more fearsome, more racist nation.

“They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” Trump said of immigrants at a rally in New Hampshire eight months ago, virtually quoting Adolf Hitler (who wrote in “Mein Kampf” that “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning.”)


In a last-ditch effort to prevail in their campaign, Trump and Vance are encouraging the haters. On Sept. 10, Vance told his followers to “keep the cat memes flowing,” notwithstanding that they were endangering people in his own state.

Meanwhile, members of Trump’s social media war room — including Trump confidante Laura Loomer (known for sexist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Muslim, and antisemitic posts) — are busily spreading AI-generated images of dogs and cats being protected by Trump, along with other content promoting the claim that the pets were being eaten by Haitians.

Let me repeat: There no justification whatsoever for violence or threats of violence in our democracy. While utterly despicable, yesterday’s second apparent assassination attempt on Trump can be seen as a symptom of the hate-filled politics he and Vance are peddling.


This must stop.

(Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of “The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It.” Read more from Robert Reich at https://robertreich.substack.com/)

©2024 Robert Reich. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
 
TheStormofWar said:
I don't get this. Are Trumpers hating on the word "quixotic" or something? Are Trumpers afraid to visit news websites or watch TV? Back in our day, we had this thing called a newspaper.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that mainstream news is obvious bias propaganda. I'm not sure how anyone can emerge from covid and Afghanistan not to mention Vietnam and not have skepticism of mainstream news. I mean "Quixotic"? Why choose that word? They are literally romanticizing this dip **** shooter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF

​

​

​

​

Salon.com​



Leaked Supreme Court memos reveal John Roberts' role in shielding Trump from prosecution​

Story by Nicholas Liu
• 3h • 4 min read



"John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, on Feb. 22 issued a memo to his colleagues urging them not only to take up an appeal from former President Donald Trump over his immunity claim, but also to rule in favor of granting him that immunity.

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently” from the appeals court, he wrote in the memo leaked to the New York Times, essentially suggesting the court would shield Trump from certain charges and the appellate court's decision greenlighting his 2020 election interference trial.


The document, along with other justices' memos, accounts of the proceedings and testimony from sources the Times interviewed, offers a window into Roberts' high level of involvement in several cases that benefited Trump and ultimately helped him climb out of a mire of legal troubles that threatened to upend his 2024 presidential campaign. According to the Times, his handling of the cases surprised other justices in a court where six of the nine members have been appointed by Republican presidents. Three of them were appointed by Trump.

Roberts exerted his influence in March this year, when he persuaded the other judges to rule that states could not unilaterally kick federal candidates from a ballot. While the judges agreed unanimously on the matter, the court's liberals dissented to an additional proposition that anyone seeking to enforce the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment against insurrectionist candidates running for office would need to first obtain congressional approval. In June, the chief justice took charge of the case that ended with the court declaring that the government was too zealous in its prosecution of January 6 insurrectionists. The case was originally assigned to Justice Samuel Alito, who surrendered it to Roberts shortly after the storm broke over his wife hanging an upside-down American flag -- an emblem of the "Stop the Steal" movement -- though it's unconfirmed that the flag controversy was the reason for the switch.

Alito's flag troubles and revelations that Justice Clarence Thomas's wife Virginia encouraged some of Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election provoked widespread calls for the two judges to recuse themselves from the three cases involving Trump. Both of them, declining those calls, ruled with the conservative majority in all of them.

The Times reported that during the discussions over Trump's immunity case, some of the conservative justices wanted to schedule it for the next term, which would have certainly meant a post-election decision. The chief justice, joining the court's liberals, chose to hear the case earlier. Oral arguments began in April, and, by then, it was clear that Roberts and the other conservative justices were focusing not on Trump's actions or the "here and now of this case," in the words of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, but on broader legal questions.

“I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case,” Alito told the courtroom. Justice Neil Gorsuch added that they were writing "a rule for the ages."

Roberts and Kavanaugh, who worked to protect presidential powers as White House lawyers, brought their perspective to the bench, raising concerns that a president who could be prosecuted for official acts might not wield his powers effectively.

Two months later, Roberts circulated a draft opinion that prompted Justice Sonia Sotomayor to offer agreement on some points in order to moderate the forthcoming decision, according to sources familiar with the proceedings. Roberts, who has often favored consensus, did not accept. In a historic 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court made a ruling that not only shielded Trump from prosecution, but also broadly expanded the scope of presidential power in the future.

Roberts used a decidedly lofty tone to justify the decision, invoking Alexander Hamilton's views on a strong presidency to argue that the desire to hold Trump accountable could not justify a clipping of his office's authority. “In a case like this one, focusing on ‘transient results’ may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic,” he wrote. “Our perspective must be more farsighted.”

That perspective, if it ever had merit, did not resonate with the public. Liberals condemned the decision as a dangerous abuse of power by conservative justices, while conservatives celebrated it as a political victory for their favored presidential candidate. And it failed to provide cover for a Supreme Court already diminished by other much-criticized decisions and scandals that raised questions over the partiality of some of its justices.


Overseeing the immunity case before the Supreme Court's intervention was Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must now interpret the its ruling in Trump v. United States and decide which charges against Trump are still valid under the new framing of what a president can or cannot do. And when that interpretation is revealed, both sides will be able to appeal her ruling. More delays are likely, as is the seeming inevitability that the case will once again end up in the Supreme Court.
 
Roberts assigned the case to Alito but took it back when the optics of an insurrectionist flag flying at two of Alito's homes became a thorn. According to historians that is unheard of without a recusal of the Justice in question.
 
TheStormofWar said:
I don't get this. Are Trumpers hating on the word "quixotic" or something? Are Trumpers afraid to visit news websites or watch TV? Back in our day, we had this thing called a newspaper.
Click to expand...
Also, I don't have X. I knew about the trump shooter.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
str8line said:


Robert B. Reich: Trump’s hate is no joke​

Opinion by Robert B. Reich, Tribune Content Agency
• 4h • 4 min read

The second apparent attempt on Trump’s life — yesterday at his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida — occurred just over two months after he was wounded during an attempt on his life at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. “They’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you,” Trump said after the first attempt. “I’m just standing in the way".

“They” should not be coming after anyone. There is no place in our democracy for violence, nor for threats of violence.

Which brings me to Trump’s claim in last week’s debate that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are “eating the dogs … eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

It quickly became a vast internet joke, fueling thousands of hilarious memes and songs. But it’s no laughing matter. Trump’s claim has already provoked threats of violence.

Over the weekend, two hospitals in Springfield were locked down after bomb threats, police said. Other threats received by Springfield officials have forced government buildings to close, two elementary schools to be evacuated and the students moved to a different location, and a middle school to shut down altogether.

After JD Vance first began spreading baseless rumors about Haitians in Springfield, members of the neo-Nazi group “Blood Tribe” marched into the city carrying guns, wearing body armor, and carrying Neo-Nazi flags. At an Aug. 27 town hall meeting, one claimed that the city had been taken over by “degenerate third worlders,” blamed Jews for the influx, and warned that “crime and savagery will only increase with every Haitian you allow in.”


Robert Reich

Robert Reich Provided by Tribune Content Agency


Springfield’s Haitian immigrants say they are afraid. Some have kept their children home from school, fearing violence. Others have reported harassment on the street, in their cars, and at stores. A Springfield family whose son died last year when the bus in which he was riding accidentally collided with a car driven by a Haitian immigrant has pleaded for Trump and Vance to stop using their deceased son for political purposes.

Yet Trump and JD Vance are doubling down. Yesterday, before the attempt on Trump’s life, Vance said on CNN that the claims about Haitians eating the pets of Springfield residents came from “firsthand accounts from my constituents.” When interviewer Dana Bash suggested that the claims had caused bomb threats, Vance called her a “Democratic propagandist.” But the connection is indisputable.

Rather than offhand comments, Trump’s and Vance’s claims are calculated. Trump’s last two posts on Truth Social before the debate were AI images of cats and ducks — one depicting cats in military fatigues carrying assault rifles and wearing MAGA hats, the other showing the candidate himself sitting on a plane amid a crowd of ducks and cats.

Trump is now talking about holding a rally in Springfield. “We’re going to get these people out,” Trump said in a Friday news conference. Although Springfield’s Haitian immigrants are in the United States legally, he promised to stage “the largest deportation in the history of our country” if reelected.

Trump’s and Vance’s claims are completely bogus. Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, told CBS News on Wednesday that “these Haitians came in here to work because there were jobs, and they filled a lot of jobs. And if you talk to employers, they’ve done a very, very good job and they work very, very hard.”

Another of Trump’s bogus claims is now threatening legal immigrants in Aurora, Colorado, a Denver suburb that Trump has repeatedly asserted is being “taken over” by Venezuelan criminals. “Simply not true,” Aurora’s Republican mayor and city council member wrote in a joint statement.

As in Springfield, Trump’s baseless claims are harming innocent people in Aurora. Immigrants there say they have been told their nationality makes them ineligible for jobs or housing. Trump’s claims have led to threats and drawn armed groups to the city, claiming to offer vigilante-style protection.

Trump and Vance are using the oldest of tyrannical ploys — fueling deep-seated fears by creating an “other” — depicted as subhuman — who “take over” towns and “devour” loved ones.

In Springfield, the loved ones are peoples’ pets. But how far is this bogus claim from vicious Nazi claims of Jews devouring children? Substitute “Jew” for “Haitian” in Springfield or for “Venezuelan” in Aurora, and you’re back to the Nazis of the 1930s.

In demonizing and dehumanizing migrants, Trump and Vance are not just seeking to win over a few wavering voters across the nation or making a play for control of the Senate. They are trying to scare America into becoming a more fearsome, more racist nation.

“They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” Trump said of immigrants at a rally in New Hampshire eight months ago, virtually quoting Adolf Hitler (who wrote in “Mein Kampf” that “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning.”)


In a last-ditch effort to prevail in their campaign, Trump and Vance are encouraging the haters. On Sept. 10, Vance told his followers to “keep the cat memes flowing,” notwithstanding that they were endangering people in his own state.

Meanwhile, members of Trump’s social media war room — including Trump confidante Laura Loomer (known for sexist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Muslim, and antisemitic posts) — are busily spreading AI-generated images of dogs and cats being protected by Trump, along with other content promoting the claim that the pets were being eaten by Haitians.

Let me repeat: There no justification whatsoever for violence or threats of violence in our democracy. While utterly despicable, yesterday’s second apparent assassination attempt on Trump can be seen as a symptom of the hate-filled politics he and Vance are peddling.


This must stop.

(Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of “The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It.” Read more from Robert Reich at https://robertreich.substack.com/)

2024 Robert Reich. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Click to expand...
trump sucks

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Mongoose said:
I think the problem is that mainstream news is obvious bias propaganda.
Click to expand...
MSM is in the business of clicks, views, or fishwrap sales. Two words: Yellow Journalism. Otherwise, simply put, Fox News would not exist. People tend to accuse CNN of being a liberal media outlet, but if they actually bothered to read, they've been fairly friendly to Trump in a lot of stories up to recent. Been that way forever and a day. It's part of the reason why I avoid them is because they have no bearing, which indicates lines of bull**** under the hood.
I'm not sure how anyone can emerge from covid and Afghanistan not to mention Vietnam and not have skepticism of mainstream news.
Click to expand...
If I had to choose between a vetted story and the BS on ExTwitter? That's not much of a contest.
I mean "Quixotic"? Why choose that word? They are literally romanticizing this dip **** shooter.
Click to expand...
Given the dude's history? Quixotic is very much an accurate (and probably the most apt) term. It's not romanticizing anything.
 
MT Steve said:
Who decides what is misinformation and what isn't? Who decides what content is dangerous to mental health and what isn't?

Ponder that for a second, and hopefully you see how terrifying that can quickly become. The first amendment is a Godsend, and yes you can point at issues created by freedom of speech, but the alternative is far worse, and history is littered with examples of why.
Click to expand...
We already regulate free speech.
  • Can you yell "fire" in a theater?
  • Have you ever tried hosting a concert in your neighborhood at 3:00 am?
  • We have laws against revenge porn.
  • Do you find restrictions against child porn to infringe on your free speech?
There's a lot of space in between Totalitarian North Korea and this libertarian "do nothing" that many "free speech" advocates seem to promote. We regulate free speech so that society can function and function well.

Now, let's focus for a bit on social media. It's no secret that social media has dethroned the printed word as the primary source of news and information for most Americans. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have claimed that their social media platforms are the new "town square." Yet, social media platforms have resisted the same regulations and restrictions that held print journalism accountable. The new "town square" has become a sewer of disinformation, hate communities, and otherwise harmful products detrimental to our society. Listen, if social media wants all the power of what print journalism had 50 years ago, then it needs to abide by certain standards. Right now, it hasn't any. And it's hurting our society. Observe:

1. American Enemies Exploit Social Media: Just recently social media was used once again by Russia to promote the Kremlin's talking pts. With a few million bucks, it paid several right wing propagandists to derail the American-led effort to aid Ukraine. This is a national security risk. We know from both the Mueller Report and the Republican-led Senate Report in 2020 that America's greatest enemies, China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia are exploiting social media to divide the west. We need to raise our defenses here.
2. Social Media Hurts Mental Health: Social media companies know that their algorithms hurt people, especially young people. Because they prioritize keeping customers on their platforms and not accurately informing them, they don't care about mental health. Similar to the tobacco companies of the 1990s, they're fighting regulation so they can continue to exploit young people, even if it kills them. Why are we tolerating this?
3. Disinformation Leads to Death: We are currently seeing how Facebook has inspired conspiracies against Haitians living in Ohio. We have seen it spread disinformation about elections, disease and vaccines, and even genocide. A few years back, it led to genocide in Thailand. Quite honestly, if Facebook knew it could be held accountable for the hate and death that it inspires, it would be compelled to change. At the very least, do away with its algorithms. If they want to be the "new town square" then they need to have some sort of standard. We also saw during the Trump administration people who innocently liked a community or post about "reopening schools" and then a few clicks later, due to the algorithm, were led to extremist communities and right wing hate groups. This isn't how a democracy is sustained. I recommend reading this article. It's alarming.
4. Regulation of Toxic Social Media for Better Outcomes is a Net Good for Society: Having standards, improving the transparency, and making social media healthier isn't a bad thing. I liken this to the formation of the FDA 100 years ago. A century ago, food producers didn't need to provide expiration dates for their products or actually provide accurately labeled drugs for their medicine. Like today, there was a need and there was push back from "free speech absolutists" who felt that the government forcing food and drug producers to be held to certain standards was a step too far by the government. Over time, the FDA has proven its worth. Protecting consumers from rancid food or inaccurately labeled drugs or medicines tainted with glass shards has saved countless lives. I believe that the same must be done to social media companies.

As usual, I'll provide a few ideas supported by experts to demonstrate the seriousness of this topic. Here are a few ideas to help make social media more accountable and responsible to make it safer for Americans:
1. Transparency: If social media companies continue to use their algorithms, then they must be transparent in why they're showing what they're showing in one's newsfeed.
2. Create a New Non-Partisan Agency: Much like the FDA, create a new government agency to establish rules and regulate social media companies. This agency could team up with fact-checkers to ensure that social media platforms aren't merely being used by malicious foreign powers or bad faith actors.
3. Break Up Monopolies: Currently, Facebook connects over 2 billion people to its network. So a disinformation campaign or a hate community will find plenty of consumers, especially if a few clicks of the algorithm connect innocent people to these groups. There comes a point where one company is just too powerful. Break it up. Encourage competition so that the free market can thrive.
4. Enable Social Media Companies to be Held Liable: If the disinformation that social media companies refuse to take down or correct lead to harm, they need to be held liable just as any newspaper would. They shouldn't be given special privileges.

Lastly, this was a time consuming post. This isn't directed at any particular user, but if people want to join in on this conversation, I ask that you refrain from the usual ad-hominem attacks and silly posts. Your post will be ignored and I will block you. Frankly, I just don't have the time to waste on stupid people on here. So if you want to have a serious conversation about this topic, back your opinion up with some evidence. Otherwise, don't post. No one is forcing you to reply to anything I post. This is your only warning.

References:

View: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/al-franken-madiba-dennie-steven-brill/id1645614328?i=1000657366955

time.com

We Can Regulate Social Media Without Censorship. Here’s How

Rather than regulatory perfection, we can aim for a reduction in imperfection. Instead of aiming to prevent all online harm, we can aim for a reduction in that risk.
time.com time.com

I think this is worth a watch:

View: https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_what_obligation_do_social_media_platforms_have_to_the_greater_good?subtitle=en
 
Last edited:
MT Steve said:
Because the "slippery slope" stuff keeps getting stopped in its tracks at the judicial level. Because it's unconstitutional. Because the 1st amendment (which you don't seem to understand, since you keep citing examples that fall outside of it) disallows it.

You should go look at what the GOP believes online harmful speech is. Do you think social media platforms should be banned from allowing people to post helpful resources for the LGBT community? Because saying the government should be able to regulate social media is an open invitation for them to ban precisely that, among many other things you'd strongly disagree with banning. And they have literally tried. Go see the laws that Texas and Florida passed that the courts halted.

Allowing the government to regulate social media is, by extension, allowing the government to decide what constitutes harmful speech. It is NOT what you seem to think it would be (banning speech that you think is harmful).
Click to expand...
This is not what we're talking about at all.

And you're using straw man fallacy in an attempt to prevent any regulation of social media companies. It's akin to "What's stopping the government from taking away ALL guns if we allow the government to regulate some guns? Therefore, we can't have any regulation of any guns!"

It's just not a mature and honest discussion and if this is a taste of what we're going to have here then I seriously just wasted about 30 minutes typing up my previous post.
 
The Thriller said:
We already regulate free speech.
  • Can you yell "fire" in a theater?
  • Have you ever tried hosting a concert in your neighborhood at 3:00 am?
  • We have laws against revenge porn.
  • Do you find restrictions against child porn to infringe on your free speech?
Click to expand...
Listing the extremely limited ways that the 1st amendment allows the government to regulate free speech is a horrible argument for why we should loosen up the 1st amendment to allow the government to regulate "harmful" speech online, as they would define it. Look at how the GOP defines it. I am 100% confident that you don't want the content they're talking about to be banned from social media. And that's what loosening the 1st amendment for what Kamala wants censored would allow for. I can't stress this enough: YOU don't get to decide. The Democrats don't exclusively get to decide.

The 1st amendment is crucial.
 
The Thriller said:
This is not what we're talking about at all.

And you're using straw man fallacy in an attempt to prevent any regulation of social media companies. It's akin to "What's stopping the government from taking away ALL guns if we allow the government to regulate some guns? Therefore, we can't have any regulation of any guns!"

It's just not a mature and honest discussion and if this is a taste of what we're going to have here then I seriously just wasted about 30 minutes typing up my previous post.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't understand what you're envisioning here. Some carve-out to the 1st amendment that allows the government to regulate harmful content or misinformation on social media, but ONLY if the DEMOCRATS say it's harmful content or misinformation?

Because that's not how it would work. Like at all. Once you give the government power to regulate harmful content or misinformation, that means you're giving the GOP that same power when they're the ones in charge. And it doesn't take much research to see what content they deem harmful or misinformation, and why you should be opposed to that.
 
MT Steve said:
I guess I don't understand what you're envisioning here. Some carve-out to the 1st amendment that allows the government to regulate harmful content or misinformation on social media, but ONLY if the DEMOCRATS say it's harmful content or misinformation?

Because that's not how it would work. Like at all. Once you give the government power to regulate harmful content or misinformation, that means you're giving the GOP that same power when they're the ones in charge. And it doesn't take much research to see what content they deem harmful or misinformation, and why you should be opposed to that.
Click to expand...
Really if you're giving politicians that power you're giving it to the Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Finance, Big Social Media. It becomes this sort of Ouroboros. If politicians take control, then they can provide cover for the mega corporations while giving the mega corporations every single thing they could ever dream of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top