What's new

Kamala Harris for Pres

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.
Which is essentially what is happening now anyway with no regulation and no enforcement of existing regulations. Until we break the connection between big money (meaning to encompass all the industries that bribe politicians) and politics all of this is pretty academic anyway. None of them have the guts to go after the hand that feeds them millions. The most recent activity on anti-trust and price fixing is the strongest response we've seen to business taking advantage of their pet politicians in over 2 decades. We need to see more of this.
 
Which is essentially what is happening now anyway with no regulation and no enforcement of existing regulations. Until we break the connection between big money (meaning to encompass all the industries that bribe politicians) and politics all of this is pretty academic anyway. None of them have the guts to go after the hand that feeds them millions. The most recent activity on anti-trust and price fixing is the strongest response we've seen to business taking advantage of their pet politicians in over 2 decades. We need to see more of this.

Term limits.
 
Term limits.
Agreed. If we had the term I've been advocating for president we wouldn't even be in the conversation we are having right now. I'd like to see the president serve a single 6-year term, with no possibility of reelection. Gives them a year to kiss special interest ***, like they all do at the beginning, and a year at the end to campaign for the next guy, and 4 years in between to actually do ****. Would be way more productive than our current system.
 
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.
Read the rest of the post. Get past the part about fire in a theater stuff.

There are a lot of good points in that post.

Like do you want NO limits and NO regulations? Do you think it would be ok if I went on social media and posted your address and said you were a pedophile and someone came and shot your family? No issue with something like that?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Read the rest of the post. Get past the part about fire in a theater stuff.

There are a lot of good points in that post.

Like do you want NO limits and NO regulations? Do you think it would be ok if I went on social media and posted your address and said you were a pedophile and someone came and shot your family? No issue with something like that?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Again, there is a difference between Government regulation and Social media self regulating.
 



From Salon:​

"Depressed, disgusted and horrified": These lifelong Republicans say they're finally done with Trump​

Story by Marin Scotten
• 50m • 6 min read

Robert Nix, a 62-year-old lawyer from Philadelphia, was a lifelong Republican before Donald Trump came to office. He’s voted red in every election since he turned 18, and things were no different in 2016 when he voted for the GOP candidate.

But Nix quickly felt he had made a mistake. He was bothered by Trump’s boisterous comments and attacks on freedom of the press. By the time the next election rolled around in 2020, Nix put aside his ideological differences with President Joe Biden and voted Democrat for the first time in his life.


“I wasn't happy about it, but I didn't see any choice,” Nix said in an interview with Salon. This year, he’s encouraging others to do the same.

Nix is one of hundreds of Republicans sharing their experience in the hopes it will resonate with center-right voters in swing states like Pennsylvania. He is part of Republican Voters Against Trump (RVAT), a $3.5 million ad campaign started by Defending Democracy Together, an advocacy organization for conservatives "dedicated to defending America’s democratic norms, values, and institutions." In 2020, the same group launched a similar project, dubbed Republican Accountability, to share testimonials from conservative voters on their decision not to vote for Trump and encourage others to vote blue.

This year's campaign has the same objective: to use personal stories to reach center-right voters in battleground states who are concerned about Trump but hesitant to vote Democratic for the first time.

“The campaign is a community of these voters who feel politically homeless, who need a new home, who want to reject Donald Trump, but don't necessarily identify as Democrats,” John Conway, RVAT's director of strategy, said in an interview with Salon.

RVAT’s website has over 300 recorded testimonies from former-Trump voters who are voting Democrat this time around. Voters share the dangers of a second Trump term and encourage other conservatives to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. Many of the testimonies, including Nix’s, are also on billboards and streaming service ads in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Kyle Sweetser, a 35-year-old construction worker and father of two from Mobile, Ala., voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020. As a small business owner in the South, Sweetser liked that Trump was "business minded" and thought he would bring a fresh perspective to the Oval Office.

When Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018, Sweetser directly felt the effects on his construction business and started to question Trump's economic policy. He still voted Republican in 2020, but did so reluctantly. After the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, however, Sweetser lost all faith in the former president.

Trump winning the Republican primary earlier this year "shook" Sweetser "to the core," he said. He decided he would vote Democrat for the first time in his life this fall.

Like Nix, Sweetser started speaking out against Trump, mostly criticizing his views on the economy and approach to foreign policy. With his children's futures in mind, he even spoke at the Democratic National Convention in August.

"I really started to really look at Trump's record under a microscope and realize how wrong he was, you know, on foreign policy, on trade, on the economy," he said in an interview with Salon. "I've never really been somebody that goes online and talks about things, but I felt like it was the right thing to do."


While much of Sweetser's decision to vote Democrat is about policy, for Nix this year’s election transcends issues of the economy, foreign affairs or immigration. This election is about preventing a “narcissistic” authoritarian from entering office, he said.

“We can overcome bad policy. We can't overcome if one of our political parties becomes a movement that is no longer part of democracy, that takes us over the edge,” Nix said. “We can't come back from that.”

Nix was one of 156,000 Republican voters who voted for Nikki Haley in Pennsylvania's Republican primary election in April, netting her over 16% in a presidential race that she had already dropped out of a month before. The former UN ambassador, who has since endorsed Trump, also received 20% of the primary vote in Maryland, 21.7% in Indiana and 17.9% in Nebraska.

The support for Haley, despite her no longer being a candidate, suggests there are many Republicans out there with qualms about the direction of their party, Nix said.


"Those people that voted for Haley after she dropped out as purely a protest vote against Trump, those are the ones that have to be reached as carefully as possible," Nix said.

Harris is trying to do just that, making a deliberate effort to reach moderate Republicans, particularly Haley supporters. In August, her team launched, "Republicans for Harris," a campaign that aims to create a "permission structure" for GOP voters to vote Democrat. The campaign has hosted events in Arizona, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, with a focus on "Republican-to-Republican voter contact."

Household Republicans are supporting the movement too. Former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, has said she will vote for Harris in November because of the "danger Donald Trump poses."

“It is crucially important for people to recognize — not only is what I’ve just said about the danger that Trump poses something that should prevent people from voting for him, but I don’t believe we have the luxury of writing in candidates’ names, particularly in swing states,” Cheney said at a Duke University event. Her father followed suit.


In August, more than 230 former GOP staffers who worked for George Bush presidents, as well as the late Sen. John McCain released a letter endorsing Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. McCain's son Jimmy recently announced he too is voting for Harris.

The GOP alumni stated their support for Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, despite “ideological differences” because voting for Trump would be “untenable.”

“At home, another four years of Donald Trump’s chaotic leadership, this time focused on advancing the dangerous goals of Project 2025, will hurt real, everyday people and weaken our sacred institutions,” the letter reads.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

But despite the high-profile endorsements, recent polling shows that Trump still is perceived as more moderate than he is in reality. According to the latest New York Times/Siena College poll, just 32% of voters said Trump was too conservative, whereas 47% of voters said Harris was too liberal.


Five percent of registered GOP voters said they would vote for Harris if the election were held today, according to the same poll.

Convincing lifelong Republicans to jump ship isn’t easy. Conway said “tribal instinct is strong” among Republican voters and it may be hard for some to stray from the pack. Indeed, since Nix began sharing his experience and campaigning against Trump, he’s felt incredibly isolated within the Republican movement. He’s been cut off by friends, removed from email lists, and excluded from right-wing circles, he said.

“Each day I wake up and think, 'I can't possibly be more depressed, disgusted and horrified,' and each day I’m surprised to find I am,” he said.

Sweetser too has had isolating and even dangerous experiences. His home address was released online and seen by over 100,000 people. His wife received via text message from an anonymous number.


"It is what it is, you know? The more threats, the more I feel that it's important to continue to speak out," Sweetser said.

It’s a common experience, Conway said. Their target voters are in Republican families and Republican communities where they may be the only person deeply concerned about Trump. Hearing stories like Nix’s can show someone they’re not alone,

“That's what makes these testimonials so powerful: establishing permission structures for other voters to reject Donald Trump's extremism,” Conway said.
 
Again, there is a difference between Government regulation and Social media self regulating.
Agreed. Question is why do you trust musk and Zuckerberg so much? Do you think money or the well being of their customers motivate them more?

Do you think them being more restrictive on their sites would generate more or less money for them?

What is their motivation/incentive to self regulate their social media platforms?



I'm certain that if currently we didn't have an FDA and people were getting sick and dying due to food manufacturing not giving a **** and an FDA was proposed then you would be up in arms about it as well just assuming if the horrible evil government get their evil hands on anything then they will just use it for evil and make everything worse.




Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Read the rest of the post. Get past the part about fire in a theater stuff.

There are a lot of good points in that post.

Like do you want NO limits and NO regulations? Do you think it would be ok if I went on social media and posted your address and said you were a pedophile and someone came and shot your family? No issue with something like that?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
What you are proposing is already illegal, under both defamation and anti-doxxing laws.



The 1st amendment does not protect defamatory speech, threats, or the invasion of privacy. And to be totally honest, really not trying to be mean, but if you educated yourself on the 1st amendment, I think this would be a far more productive conversation. It is brilliantly designed in what it does protect vs what it does not.
 
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.
What? Im really confused that this was your takeaway from my post.

Did you read my post? Who said anything about Democrats deciding things? The agency that would regulate social media would be non-partisan, like the FDA or Fed Reserve. It would be designed to be above politics and serve society, not any political party.

Did you click on and read ANY of the sources I provided?

This is really discouraging to me. You spend 30 mins writing a thoughtful post with links to resources and it’s immediately shot down without seemingly any consideration. Maybe it’d just be easier to spam the forum with a bunch of silly social media posts, like certain posters on here.
 
Last edited:
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.
I’d try re-reading my post and maybe clicking on some of the links I provided. You’re asking by me to waste more time to re-explain things when your initial response hadn’t given my post more than 30 seconds of thought.

Frankly, I’m not going to waste more time on this website if people can’t just do the basics. I provided you references for a reason. I’m not being rude here but I can only meet posters halfway these days.
 
This is fine. No problem here. I bet most Americans on social media will be adequately informed by our benevolent social media ceos that the algorithms serving them up this bile is actually disinformation from Russia. We definitely should just standby and allow foreign adversaries do this to our society cuz freedom or something. /s

This feels like a repeat of the gun debate. We can’t regulate the AR15 or any guns cuz freedom and slippery slope; a sunk cost mentality that prevents us from re-evaluating what we’re doing no matter the harm.

I’m guessing most on this hellscape will ignore this post and won’t even click on the NPR link. But for those who care about what Iran, NK, and Russia are doing on social media right now to **** with our politics and turn Americans against each other, the story below is a quick 3 min read. It highlights why I believe we need government regulation of social media as it’s clearly a national security risk that has the potential to upend our politics. We wouldn’t tolerate Russia flooding our water supply with poison or our food and medicine with toxins. Why then are we allowing our greatest enemies to disinform our public and fill their minds with **** without any resistance? Does anyone think this is sustainable for this century with China and Russia especially looking to expand their influence?

I’m out of this discussion now. Attack me for being extreme, anti American, and partisan, as usual. When I return I fully expect this thread to have at least 7 more pages of hot garbage mostly spam from social media that I’ll quickly ignore. Maybe in those 7 pages there might be a post or two worth reading from someone like Red.

 
Last edited:
What? Im really confused that this was your takeaway from my post.

Did you read my post? Who said anything about Democrats deciding things? The agency that would regulate social media would be non-partisan, like the FDA or Fed Reserve. It would be designed to be above politics and serve society, not any political party.

Did you click on and read ANY of the sources I provided?

This is really discouraging to me. You spend 30 mins writing a thoughtful post with links to resources and it’s immediately shot down without seemingly any consideration. Maybe it’d just be easier to spam the forum with a bunch of silly social media posts, like certain posters on here.
Welcome to American politics. Hardly anyone pays attention to anything beyond the D or R.
 
I’d try re-reading my post and maybe clicking on some of the links I provided. You’re asking by me to waste more time to re-explain things when your initial response hadn’t given my post more than 30 seconds of thought.

Frankly, I’m not going to waste more time on this website if people can’t just do the basics. I provided you references for a reason. I’m not being rude here but I can only meet posters halfway these days.

Fair enough. I'll give a more thorough response. Let me know if there's anything you've said that I don't address here.

You stated I must be opposed to regulating things that the 1st amendment doesn't protect to begin with, such as hosting a concert at 3am and other examples. I pointed it out to Fish earlier, but those were examples of things that are already illegal and have no 1st amendment protections. Nor should they.

You posted examples of how social media can promote misinformation or harmful content. I'm not arguing that they don't do this. I'm arguing why giving the government power to regulate ideas and beliefs is a bad idea. You proposed the creation of a non-partisan committee. I've already discussed that with Fish - but I'll address that here again in a couple paragraphs here for your convenience.

You said "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." The difference is that the newspaper itself is the publisher of its content. The content on social media is created by randoms on the internet. Section 230: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This was a bi-partisan creation of Congress, who recognized that websites and apps, without Section 230 protections, wouldn't even be able to get started because of the overwhelming legal risk to host users’ speech.

You stated that being against loosening 1st amendment protections is akin to being against gun regulation. "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!" Gun regulations are not an avenue for the regulation of ideas and beliefs. Furthermore, it is very easy to craft legislation that calls for the regulation of some guns, but not all guns. The regulations can be defined extremely objectively. Speech cannot. For every post, you'd need guidelines to determine how to ascertain the truth of the post, how to determine whether or not the falsehood of a post would be damaging enough to the general public to require action by the social media platform, how to determine what constitutes "harmful speech" (despite the fact that half the country and half of Congress would disagree on any given topic, and despite the fact that what is harmful to one person or community might not be harmful to the overwhelming majority of people, or might even be helpful to tons of other people), and so on and so forth. It is extremely subjective. And you're counting on a committee to permanently remain free of bias, to remain completely fair, to remain completely ethical, or suddenly something like pro-LGBT content is no longer allowed on the internet (something that those in the GOP calling for social media regulation are heavily in favor of - so you're really counting on none of those people ever having any sort of influence on the committee). I do not think this is realistic - maybe this is where we most disagree.

I do want to conclude with things you've said that I agree with:

"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"

"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."

Don't have a single problem with either of these proposals.

Welcome to American politics. Hardly anyone pays attention to anything beyond the D or R.
Despite everything I've said, I'm still voting for Kamala Harris, and it isn't a difficult decision. That doesn't mean I agree with 100% of what she says, and especially not the loosening of 1st amendment protections. In a sense, I'm doing the literal opposite of simply agreeing with whatever has a "D" next to it.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. I'll give a more thorough response. Let me know if there's anything you've said that I don't address here.

You stated I must be opposed to regulating things that the 1st amendment doesn't protect to begin with, such as hosting a concert at 3am and other examples. I pointed it out to Fish earlier, but those were examples of things that are already illegal and have no 1st amendment protections. Nor should they.

You posted examples of how social media can promote misinformation or harmful content. I'm not arguing that they don't do this. I'm arguing why giving the government power to regulate ideas and beliefs is a bad idea. You proposed the creation of a non-partisan committee. I've already discussed that with Fish - but I'll address that here again in a couple paragraphs here for your convenience.

You said "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." The difference is that the newspaper itself is the publisher of its content. The content on social media is created by randoms on the internet. Section 230: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This was a bi-partisan creation of Congress, who recognized that websites and apps, without Section 230 protections, wouldn't even be able to get started because of the overwhelming legal risk to host users’ speech.

You stated that being against loosening 1st amendment protections is akin to being against gun regulation. "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!" Gun regulations are not an avenue for the regulation of ideas and beliefs. Furthermore, it is very easy to craft legislation that calls for the regulation of some guns, but not all guns. The regulations can be defined extremely objectively. Speech cannot. For every post, you'd need guidelines to determine how to ascertain the truth of the post, how to determine whether or not the falsehood of a post would be damaging enough to the general public to require action by the social media platform, how to determine what constitutes "harmful speech" (despite the fact that half the country and half of Congress would disagree on any given topic, and despite the fact that what is harmful to one person or community might not be harmful to the overwhelming majority of people, or might even be helpful to tons of other people), and so on and so forth. It is extremely subjective. And you're counting on a committee to permanently remain free of bias, to remain completely fair, to remain completely ethical, or suddenly something like pro-LGBT content is no longer allowed on the internet (something that those in the GOP calling for social media regulation are heavily in favor of - so you're really counting on none of those people ever having any sort of influence on the committee). I do not think this is realistic - maybe this is where we most disagree.

I do want to conclude with things you've said that I agree with:

"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"

"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."

Don't have a single problem with either of these proposals.


Despite everything I've said, I'm still voting for Kamala Harris, and it isn't a difficult decision. That doesn't mean I agree with 100% of what she says, and especially not the loosening of 1st amendment protections. In a sense, I'm doing the literal opposite of simply agreeing with whatever has a "D" next to it.
Good post. Well done.

Do you think Russia, China, Iran, etc should have first amendment protections from the United States if their intentions are to hurt the United States?

Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top