2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

There is no such thing. You keep conflating rights, which the country has granted to all individuals with "things you want or wish".

Haha it's funny that you see it that way.

Your government absolutely has the power to limit your freedoms in many situations, including a public health crisis. Welcome to America.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by Astros19

Once again, who decides what hurts people?

Protesting = no problem social justice warrioring good for everyone. Going to church not ok?

And one more time, who decides what's going to hurt people?

Walmart with tons of employees and customers = open with no concerns of people getting sick.

Joe blow who owns a small hardware store = nope, not safe shut it down?

First, your government. Then, the courts.

It's not complicated.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by lionsfan20

Don't worry her guy ham sammich is about to add that amendment.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

No need. That authority already exists.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Haha it's funny that you see it that way.

Your government absolutely has the power to limit your freedoms in many situations, including a public health crisis. Welcome to America.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Well, when I drive past Target and see the parking lot packed on Black Friday; my mind wanders into "public health crisis ... really?"

You see, it's one thing to say there's a public health crisis and it's another to allow for mass gatherings in protest, at retail outlets and at private political parties, then tell me "my rights don't matter." I think the crowd that wants to attends religious gathering would be more forgiving and understanding of this public health crisis, if such a crisis actually existed.

Instead its you can't go to church, but make sure to get that 60 inch TV before it sells out!

[salthill]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Please read.

As it relates to your infectious disease comment, I just want to go to church. First amendment. Google "Bill of Rights"

I see your vague, magical incantation of “Bill of Rights” and raise you the multiple restrictions placed on the Fourth Amendment by conservative Supreme Court majorities.
Yes that’s not the 1st, the point is that most Constitutional rights are not absolute. Why would freedom to practise religion be excepted? (Otherwise I look forward to your upcoming full-throated support of female genital mutilation on religious grounds....)

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Well, when I drive past Target and see the parking lot packed on Black Friday; my mind wanders into "public health crisis ... really?"

You see, it's one thing to say there's a public health crisis and it's another to allow for mass gatherings in protest, at retail outlets and at private political parties, then tell me "my rights don't matter." I think the crowd that wants to attends religious gathering would be more forgiving and understanding of this public health crisis, if such a crisis actually existed.

Instead its you can't go to church, but make sure to get that 60 inch TV before it sells out!

This is fair. I don't disagree.

The restrictions on assembly need to be across the board or not at all. Fair is fair.

I'm not one to single out religion (either for or against) and I don't see this as a religious freedom issue. Religion can be practiced without assembling. This, to me, is a freedom to assemble issue. And allowing assembly sometimes but not others is inconsistent and wrong.

I'm not all about lockdowns either. People seem to think I am, but I've consistently stated lockdowns aren't going to be effective. I am for reasonable precautions, not lockdowns.

What I do not like about this is an exemption for religion. I'm not sure why Target somehow gets an exemption either. It makes no sense. Either shut everyone down or don't, no exemptions.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[HeadstrongRSS]

Originally Posted by Astros19

Once again, who decides what hurts people?
Protesting = no problem social justice warrioring good for everyone. Going to church not ok?
And one more time, who decides what's going to hurt people?
Walmart with tons of employees and customers = open with no concerns of people getting sick.
Joe blow who owns a small hardware store = nope, not safe shut it down?

Private companies, thats who. You have a right to say whatever you want. You DO NOT have the right to force a private company to allow you to use their platform to amplify messages they feel are nefarious. Period. End of mfing discussion.

Now, as for why they may label some stuff, but not others. Whether you like it or not, Russia DID influence the election. They actively promoted Trump and attacked Hillary. The dispute is whether they can prove 45 ordered it, which stopped short. But what they did do is find 6 associates that either lied about Russia, meetings with Russians, etc. Where there's smoke, there is fire.

As for THIS election, there are NO VALID ARGUMENTS of fraud. None. Its imagination by a belief-centric part of the country that can't accept Trump is the most hated politician in history, sealing his fate. So everything done is just that side exhausting every potential legal option they can think of - most recently trying to get 1 state (Texas) and other states that Trump won to sue the battleground states he lost in an attempt to throw their court-validated election results out when every bit of fraud has been dismissed by the courts immediately.

This, to me, is actual treason, but thats just me. At a minimum, don't big tech can't let their infrastructure spread intentional lies across the nation. At max, hang him by the neck. Im fine with both.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

First, your government. Then, the courts.

It's not complicated.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

The problem is that it's not just the government that's doing the deciding.
For example, thousands of posts ago I put up a post describing where I posted this video on my facebook page......

https://youtu.be/ox4IRQVGsBU

It was immediately covered up with the message "This post may be deemed offensive or violent".
Now I understand some may not like Lee Greenwood, the song, soldiers and or babies, and even the U.S. flag, but come on offensive and violent?
I even went so far as to click the button to have the post re-reviewed as I thought there was no way anyone in their right mind could see it as violent or offensive and it must have been a mistake. Nope, came back exactly the same way, offensive and violent.
Now I realize this is small potatoes compared to some other forms of censorship but give an inch and they'll take a mile.
This should concern ALL OF US.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by HeadstrongRSS

Private companies, thats who. You have a right to say whatever you want. You DO NOT have the right to force a private company to allow you to use their platform to amplify messages they feel are nefarious. Period. End of mfing discussion.

Now, as for why they may label some stuff, but not others. Whether you like it or not, Russia DID influence the election. They actively promoted Trump and attacked Hillary. The dispute is whether they can prove 45 ordered it, which stopped short. But what they did do is find 6 associates that either lied about Russia, meetings with Russians, etc. Where there's smoke, there is fire.

As for THIS election, there are NO VALID ARGUMENTS of fraud. None. Its imagination by a belief-centric part of the country that can't accept Trump is the most hated politician in history, sealing his fate. So everything done is just that side exhausting every potential legal option they can think of - most recently trying to get 1 state (Texas) and other states that Trump won to sue the battleground states he lost in an attempt to throw their court-validated election results out when every bit of fraud has been dismissed by the courts immediately.

This, to me, is actual treason, but thats just me. At a minimum, don't big tech can't let their infrastructure spread intentional lies across the nation. At max, hang him by the neck. Im fine with both.

https://youtu.be/ox4IRQVGsBU

How nefarious of me to post this song/video on my facebook page.
Come on man, you eventually will regret what you're asking for, once it's used against you.
And it will, some day. It's sad that as long as it happens to opinions you dont like it's ok with obvious biased censorship.
We're supposed to be better than this.

[HeadstrongRSS]

Originally Posted by Astros19

https://youtu.be/ox4IRQVGsBU

How nefarious of me to post this song/video on my facebook page.
Come on man, you eventually will regret what you're asking for, once it's used against you.
And it will, some day. It's sad that as long as it happens to opinions you dont like it's ok with obvious biased censorship.
We're supposed to be better than this.

But dude, you're using YouTube. That's not some public service, thats a private company. They can do what they want. I dont get why the right is all about govt staying out of private companies and citizens lives....until this, where they want govt to force this company to disseminate whatever it is that you want to say. You're free to not use their platform and it MUST stay this way.

It doesn't make any sense.

Completely wide open social networks IS the downfall of our nation. This total free speech doesn't work here because it gives people a megaphone when they dont deserve it. Other countries weaponize it against us.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by Astros19

The problem is that it's not just the government that's doing the deciding.

For example, thousands of posts ago I put up a post describing where I posted this video on my facebook page......



https://youtu.be/ox4IRQVGsBU



It was immediately covered up with the message "This post may be deemed offensive or violent".

Now I understand some may not like Lee Greenwood, the song, soldiers and or babies, and even the U.S. flag, but come on offensive and violent?

I even went so far as to click the button to have the post re-reviewed as I thought there was no way anyone in their right mind could see it as violent or offensive and it must have been a mistake. Nope, came back exactly the same way, offensive and violent.

Now I realize this is small potatoes compared to some other forms of censorship but give an inch and they'll take a mile.

This should concern ALL OF US.

First, I'm not sure why anyone would think taking that down was appropriate or necessary. But I don't know the whole story, just what I saw here today.

Second, it's their platform. They're not government. If they took it down, it's because government and the courts say they can. Your free speech doesn't apply to their private platform. Say whatever you want on your own, but you can't force them to help you.

Personally, I find your post offensive. My reasons are largely irrelevant in the context of this discussion, so I will not go into them. What I will say is that even though I find it offensive, I would defend your right to say it anyway. I would never want a post like yours to be censored. That's not cool.

But, it is their platform.

[techtre2003]

Originally Posted by HeadstrongRSS

But dude, you're using YouTube. That's not some public service, thats a private company. They can do what they want. I dont get why the right is all about govt staying out of private companies and citizens lives....until this, where they want govt to force this company to disseminate whatever it is that you want to say. You're free to not use their platform and it MUST stay this way.

It doesn't make any sense.

Completely wide open social networks IS the downfall of our nation. This total free speech doesn't work here because it gives people a megaphone when they dont deserve it. Other countries weaponize it against us.

The problem is with section 230 protections. The argument is that since those social media companies are acting as publishers they should not be protected by section 230. As far as I know, that's still the debate.

[burke23]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

The problem is with section 230 protections. The argument is that since those social media companies are acting as publishers they should not be protected by section 230. As far as I know, that's still the debate.

The desire to remove section 230 doesn’t make sense to me (if Im understanding it correctly). So we want these private websites to be legally responsible for the content (specifically private comments/beliefs) on them? What would be the motivation to even host a social media site going forward? Imagine the libel that a Twitter account could bring to Twitter. I get fact checking on these sites is a huge gray area, but I think we can reasonably agree that social divide can be exacerbated with fake and misleading posts so there may be a level of social responsibility in that regard.

[Lonewolf]

The tripe spewed in here by armchair Constitutional scholars is amusing to say the least...

[katester44]

Just reported that Governor Tom Wolf (PA) - has tested positive. And we know he has been a staunch advocate of lockdown, unless it is a protest.

I can only imagine what this will lead to here in the Commonwealth.

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by Astros19

Now I realize this is small potatoes compared to some other forms of censorship but give an inch and they'll take a mile.
This should concern ALL OF US.

I smiled when I was playing Playstation the other day and a kid called me the F word (gay one). Never let em stop you, kid. Freedom of speech is still alive!!!!!!!1111

[Brobocop]

Wish we could get a new poll.

Do you think Biden will be sworn in on 1/20/21?

Yes
No

Or something along those lines.

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by katester44

Just reported that Governor Tom Wolf (PA) - has tested positive. And we know he has been a staunch advocate of lockdown, unless it is a protest.

I can only imagine what this will lead to here in the Commonwealth.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Best news eva. Sorry bout your hypocrisy, governor.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

Wish we could get a new poll.

Do you think Biden will be sworn in on 1/20/21?

Yes
No

Or something along those lines.

Lol.

If people were honest, that poll would look exactly like this one:

Do you live in reality?

Yes

No

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[Clark]

Just a typical day in Portland

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by burke23

The desire to remove section 230 doesn’t make sense to me (if Im understanding it correctly). So we want these private websites to be legally responsible for the content (specifically private comments/beliefs) on them? What would be the motivation to even host a social media site going forward? Imagine the libel that a Twitter account could bring to Twitter. I get fact checking on these sites is a huge gray area, but I think we can reasonably agree that social divide can be exacerbated with fake and misleading posts so there may be a level of social responsibility in that regard.

Section 230 shouldn’t be contingent on what these media companies decide to censor. I think they should do a better job of being balanced in their censorship though.

If I was in charge, a whole lot more would get censored.

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by Clark

Just a typical day in Portland

Police definitely do not shoot enough white people.

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

Police definitely do not shoot enough white people.

Statistically they shoot their fair share of whites. Unless you think white people should be disproportionately shot by police.

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by ballhawkdawk

Statistically they shoot their fair share of whites. Unless you think white people should be disproportionately shot by police.

Amended: police do not shoot enough Antifa people.

[chezball]

Originally Posted by Astros19

The problem lies in who gets to determine what's false and what's true?
I'm guessing you had no problem with Adam Schiff and his nonstop BS he spewed for months and months.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

More like years and years. I'm sure heel believed every word out of his mouth.