‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 > 
 
   
 

Failed Right-Wing Predictions

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3623
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
24 June 2020 07:44
 
pluka - 23 June 2020 11:59 PM

Do you think “fascist” is an equally strange insult?

Yes.  Do you know any fascists that don’t mind being called fascists?  All insults are futile if you are genuinely attempting to communicate.  But Marxism is an economic ideology, not a cultural one.

 
 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  62
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
24 June 2020 08:55
 
MrRon - 24 June 2020 07:00 AM

That’s another way of saying, “I doubt he would lash out at media if only they were nice to him.” Well, duh! But that’s the point of the whole thing. Freedom of speech includes not just speech that you agree with, but speech you DON’T agree with. And hey, were you as irritated with Fox News when they ran their 24/7 anti Obama/Hillary outrage machine?

I mean fair, not necessarily nice. I have nothing good to say about Fox News. I think of them as neocon and christian propaganda. They are not always supporting Trump as zealously as the rest of the media is against him though (I guess some uniparty nevertrumper influence).

MrRon - 24 June 2020 07:00 AM

It appears that he would like to if he could. And the evidence has already been provided.

No. He has taken some action against certain media corporations, but there is no evidence of him trying to suppress specific opinions or facts in general across all channels like the left is trying to do. That’s just something completely different.

MrRon - 13 June 2020 03:20 PM

Now you’re moving the goal posts. No, we were NOT talking about “everyone in the western world.” We were talking about Trump intervening where he has the power to do so. Still, he has tried to coerce other entities (ESPN, the NFL) to fire their employees that spoke critically of him, or did something he just didn’t like. Do I really have to explain how antithetical that is to American values?

No, I was clearly talking about this from the beginning. My point was that it is worse than what Trump is doing. That Trump is not actually suppressing any opinions in general with his personal vendetta against some specific celebrities or media corporations. You don’t have to fear any consequences from hating on trump on social media or whatever.

MrRon - 13 June 2020 03:20 PM

No, it was the other way around. Acosta already had the microphone and was asking questions when the White House staff tried to wrestle it away from him.

Ok, so I watched the video again. Looks like his turn is up and he is acting like a child, breaking protocol and refusing to give up the microphone and even wrestling with the aide when she tries to take it from him. Seems completely reasonable to exclude him for this behavior and has nothing whatsoever to do with silencing anyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwRrcVxjms

MrRon - 13 June 2020 03:20 PM

As has been pointed out, he doesn’t just “dislike it”, he seeks to squash it. And that IS being ideologically opposed to it! And as of late, he even wants to JAIL those who exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech! See this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bsIGFAoKlQ&t=301s

I don’t see evidence of that at all. His statements about the flag burning are idiotic and cringeworthy but that’s not exactly speech, is it? He even says in that very video he supports free speech.

MrRon - 13 June 2020 03:20 PM

To the extent that there was any wrongdoing there (and it appears there was), Trump has far outdone that by going after not only several news organizations, but athletes, comedians, etc. So if you had a problem with Obama excluding Fox from some interviews, then do you also have a problem with Trump’s behavior when it comes to shutting down media/journalists?

If you put it like that, in general, of course, but I don’t know if I would agree about the validity of the specific instances if we actually went through them in detail, like I disagree with regard to the Acosta incident.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Tell that to Colin Kaepernick. Tell that to Bill Maher.

What threats were there against Kaepernick or Maher? I’m curious.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Again, I was alluding to the movie “1984”, in which there are more parallels (in total) with the Trump presidency than with any other. I called it “Trump’s” revisionist history. And what word definitions were revised in order to “align with leftist ideology”?

Who thinks about a movie when hearing 1984? I was obviously referring to Orwell’s novel, and no, I see practically no parallels with Trump and huge parallels with cultural Marxism.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Again, if you value all opinions as much as you say you do, then does Trump’s threats/actions against free speech, or the expression thereof, concern you?

Give me a specific example and I’ll tell you if it concerns me or not. If you lump in things like the Acosta incident with that it discredits the whole argument in my view.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Please prove your claim that large tech companies have unequivocally aligned with the far left. And who are those companies?

It’s blatantly obvious. Google, Twitter, Reddit, etc.
Look at what Reddit did to the Trump supporter subreddit. It was absurdly biased. Look at leaked internal communications from Google. Twitter putting warnings on Trump’s completely reasonable tweets like that he wouldn’t allow an autonomous Zone in DC.
There’s so much to talk about here but seriously, it’s so obvious that it seems like a waste of time and I feel like you’re gaslighting.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

I don’t recall that you were ever asked specifically about Biden vs Trump (correct me if I’m wrong on that). At any rate, Sanders is not running. So would you vote for Biden or Trump?

I think I was asked which democrat candidate I would vote for and I said only Sanders. Admittedly it wasn’t a very informed choice. I only know Sanders very superficially but I was impressed when he was the only one to stand up to the reparations bullies.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Also, I find it a bit strange that you would support Sanders, whom many would consider to be the MOST Marxist-like American politician!

Why is everyone pretending they don’t know what cultural Marxists are? Seriously seems like some coordinated gaslighting.
The thing is, like I said before, I generally prefer democrat policies, especially the subtler, less politicized ones, and Sander’s policies are hardly Marxist, let alone cultural Marxism. My ideal candidate would be a moderate leftist (by European standards, so kind of like Sanders I guess) who strongly opposes cultural Marxism.

[ Edited: 24 June 2020 08:58 by pluka]
 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  62
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
24 June 2020 09:08
 
LadyJane - 24 June 2020 07:44 AM
pluka - 23 June 2020 11:59 PM

Do you think “fascist” is an equally strange insult?

Yes.  Do you know any fascists that don’t mind being called fascists?  All insults are futile if you are genuinely attempting to communicate.  But Marxism is an economic ideology, not a cultural one.

I don’t know any fascists but I don’t see why they would mind being called fascist if they are fascists any more than Marxists would mind being called Marxist.
But anyway, I wasn’t attempting to insult anyone but to capture something with a label and I’m clearly talking about cultural Marxism and not about economics, that is blatantly obvious if you’ve read my posts.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2102
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
24 June 2020 12:19
 
pluka - 24 June 2020 08:55 AM
MrRon - 24 June 2020 07:00 AM

It appears that he would like to if he could. And the evidence has already been provided.

No. He has taken some action against certain media corporations, but there is no evidence of him trying to suppress specific opinions or facts in general across all channels like the left is trying to do. That’s just something completely different.

Check this out (from a right leaning outlet, no less):
https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-frivolous-lawsuits-threats-first-amendment-2020-4

Excerpt:

But Trump is a menace to the First Amendment.

His hostility to the White House press corps and the non-right-wing news media is well documented.
But while being rude to reporters and reflexively shouting “fake news” are effective tactics to make his base even less inclined to believe anything negative about Trump, they’re trivial concerns compared to the speech-chilling lawsuits filed by his reelection campaign against media outlets both big and small.

MrRon - 13 June 2020 03:20 PM

Now you’re moving the goal posts. No, we were NOT talking about “everyone in the western world.” We were talking about Trump intervening where he has the power to do so. Still, he has tried to coerce other entities (ESPN, the NFL) to fire their employees that spoke critically of him, or did something he just didn’t like. Do I really have to explain how antithetical that is to American values?

No, I was clearly talking about this from the beginning. My point was that it is worse than what Trump is doing. That Trump is not actually suppressing any opinions in general with his personal vendetta against some specific celebrities or media corporations. You don’t have to fear any consequences from hating on trump on social media or whatever.

I said the concern was “Trump intervening where he has the power to do so.” Trump has threatened to shut down social media platforms that he doesn’t like:
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/27/863011399/trump-threatens-to-shut-down-social-media-after-twitter-adds-warning-on-his-twee

Does this concern you?

And don’t forget, Trump has been a repeat offender by posting/tweeting false and/or unsubstantiated claims. The sorts of things that could have potentially far reaching and harmful consequences coming from the President of the U.S. (like, for instance, false information on coronavirus, or voting by mail).

MrRon - 13 June 2020 03:20 PM

No, it was the other way around. Acosta already had the microphone and was asking questions when the White House staff tried to wrestle it away from him.

Ok, so I watched the video again. Looks like his turn is up and he is acting like a child, breaking protocol and refusing to give up the microphone and even wrestling with the aide when she tries to take it from him. Seems completely reasonable to exclude him for this behavior and has nothing whatsoever to do with silencing anyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwRrcVxjms

No. He was trying to ask a followup question. And who acts more like a child than Donald Trump? Trump regularly mocks people (even the disabled), calls them names (Pocahontas, Sleepy Joe, Crazy Bernie, etc.), has simple-minded catch phrases like “fake news” for anything he disagrees with, and has a well-earned bully reputation. Please, take your blinders off.

MrRon - 13 June 2020 03:20 PM

As has been pointed out, he doesn’t just “dislike it”, he seeks to squash it. And that IS being ideologically opposed to it! And as of late, he even wants to JAIL those who exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech! See this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bsIGFAoKlQ&t=301s

I don’t see evidence of that at all. His statements about the flag burning are idiotic and cringeworthy but that’s not exactly speech, is it? He even says in that very video he supports free speech.

Yes, it is a form of expression/speech. And as was pointed out, it’s protected by the Constitution. Anyway, how do you reconcile Trump’s comments then? You can’t be for free speech and at the same time call for jailing those who express their free speech, now can you? Moreover, how could you (or anyone) find this sort of inconsistent and wholly unprincipled behavior appealing in a President?   

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Tell that to Colin Kaepernick. Tell that to Bill Maher.

What threats were there against Kaepernick or Maher? I’m curious.

Trump urged the NFL to fire peaceful protesters. Kaepernick is the one who started the whole thing by kneeling during the national anthem back in 2016. He has not played since, and many believe the NFL team owners have silently colluded against him.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/trump-urges-nfl-owners-to-fire-players-who-protest/540897/

Bill Maher, a comedian, told a joke (because that’s what comedians do) about Trump and Trump sued him for 5 million dollars (Trump did eventually withdraw the lawsuit though).

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Again, if you value all opinions as much as you say you do, then does Trump’s threats/actions against free speech, or the expression thereof, concern you?

Give me a specific example and I’ll tell you if it concerns me or not. If you lump in things like the Acosta incident with that it discredits the whole argument in my view.

What about his desire to jail for a year anyone who burns a flag?

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Please prove your claim that large tech companies have unequivocally aligned with the far left. And who are those companies?

It’s blatantly obvious. Google, Twitter, Reddit, etc.
Look at what Reddit did to the Trump supporter subreddit. It was absurdly biased. Look at leaked internal communications from Google. Twitter putting warnings on Trump’s completely reasonable tweets like that he wouldn’t allow an autonomous Zone in DC.
There’s so much to talk about here but seriously, it’s so obvious that it seems like a waste of time and I feel like you’re gaslighting.

I think you’re right – it probably is a waste of time. But I’m not the one gaslighting.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

I don’t recall that you were ever asked specifically about Biden vs Trump (correct me if I’m wrong on that). At any rate, Sanders is not running. So would you vote for Biden or Trump?

I think I was asked which democrat candidate I would vote for and I said only Sanders. Admittedly it wasn’t a very informed choice. I only know Sanders very superficially but I was impressed when he was the only one to stand up to the reparations bullies.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Also, I find it a bit strange that you would support Sanders, whom many would consider to be the MOST Marxist-like American politician!

Why is everyone pretending they don’t know what cultural Marxists are? Seriously seems like some coordinated gaslighting.
The thing is, like I said before, I generally prefer democrat policies, especially the subtler, less politicized ones, and Sander’s policies are hardly Marxist, let alone cultural Marxism. My ideal candidate would be a moderate leftist (by European standards, so kind of like Sanders I guess) who strongly opposes cultural Marxism.

Regarding Sanders’ policies, you’d get much disagreement from a lot of people on whether or not they could be considered “Marxist.”

Anyway, why are you avoiding the question? Would you vote for Biden or Trump?

Ron

 

 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  62
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
24 June 2020 14:47
 
MrRon - 24 June 2020 12:19 PM

Check this out (from a right leaning outlet, no less):

Lol, whoever wrote that is obviously extremely biased against Trump.
But wait, did you actually read the article? Despite the ridiculously biased rhetoric throughout it does tell the truth, which is that they strung together words that Trump said in different contexts to form a speech he never uttered. Didn’t you just rant about fox news doctoring some image in some other thread? How hypocritical can you get, seriously? So this is your idea of an attack on free speech, suing someone for actual defamation? How pathetic.

MrRon - 24 June 2020 12:19 PM

I said the concern was “Trump intervening where he has the power to do so.” Trump has threatened to shut down social media platforms that he doesn’t like:
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/27/863011399/trump-threatens-to-shut-down-social-media-after-twitter-adds-warning-on-his-twee

Does this concern you?

No, not at all. They absolutely need to be strongly regulated. Either they should lose the protection against liability for the content they host or they should act as a neutral platform without any censorship. This has nothing to do with free speech. It is about the special legal status they were granted and are abusing.

MrRon - 13 June 2020 03:20 PM

No. He was trying to ask a followup question. And who acts more like a child than Donald Trump? Trump regularly mocks people (even the disabled), calls them names (Pocahontas, Sleepy Joe, Crazy Bernie, etc.), has simple-minded catch phrases like “fake news” for anything he disagrees with, and has a well-earned bully reputation. Please, take your blinders off.

Who cares what he wanted, he wasn’t allowed another question and he acted inappropriately by refusing to give up the microphone. I’m gonna ignore the whataboutism.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

and many believe

Moving on ...

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Bill Maher, a comedian, told a joke (because that’s what comedians do) about Trump and Trump sued him for 5 million dollars (Trump did eventually withdraw the lawsuit though).

Hm, and what kind of joke was that? Something similar to that defamatory ad?

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

What about his desire to jail for a year anyone who burns a flag?

As stupid and misguided as it is, it is simply not an issue of free speech to me, and I don’t care what the American constitution says about it.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Regarding Sanders’ policies, you’d get much disagreement from a lot of people on whether or not they could be considered “Marxist.”

I couldn’t care less. His policies clearly have nothing to do with cultural Marxism.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Anyway, why are you avoiding the question? Would you vote for Biden or Trump?

How am I avoiding the question, exactly? I clearly said multiple times that I would not vote for Biden.

[ Edited: 24 June 2020 14:49 by pluka]
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2102
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
25 June 2020 07:32
 
pluka - 24 June 2020 02:47 PM
MrRon - 24 June 2020 12:19 PM

Check this out (from a right leaning outlet, no less):

Lol, whoever wrote that is obviously extremely biased against Trump.
But wait, did you actually read the article? Despite the ridiculously biased rhetoric throughout it does tell the truth, which is that they strung together words that Trump said in different contexts to form a speech he never uttered. Didn’t you just rant about fox news doctoring some image in some other thread? How hypocritical can you get, seriously? So this is your idea of an attack on free speech, suing someone for actual defamation? How pathetic.

LOL, you apparently didn’t view the “Exponential threat” clip that the article links to. It’s painfully obvious that it is a random COLLECTION of (actual} Trump quotes and NOT a constructed “speech” that he supposedly uttered. So, no hypocrisy whatsoever.

Moreover, the thrust of the article is that “Trump’s frivolous lawsuits can still cause a lot of damage to press freedom.”

MrRon - 24 June 2020 12:19 PM

I said the concern was “Trump intervening where he has the power to do so.” Trump has threatened to shut down social media platforms that he doesn’t like:
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/27/863011399/trump-threatens-to-shut-down-social-media-after-twitter-adds-warning-on-his-twee

Does this concern you?

No, not at all. They absolutely need to be strongly regulated. Either they should lose the protection against liability for the content they host or they should act as a neutral platform without any censorship. This has nothing to do with free speech. It is about the special legal status they were granted and are abusing.

But why should Trump be the arbiter of what should or shouldn’t be allowed? Do you think he is free of bias? 

MrRon - 13 June 2020 03:20 PM

No. He was trying to ask a followup question. And who acts more like a child than Donald Trump? Trump regularly mocks people (even the disabled), calls them names (Pocahontas, Sleepy Joe, Crazy Bernie, etc.), has simple-minded catch phrases like “fake news” for anything he disagrees with, and has a well-earned bully reputation. Please, take your blinders off.

Who cares what he wanted, he wasn’t allowed another question and he acted inappropriately by refusing to give up the microphone. I’m gonna ignore the whataboutism.

You’d have to ignore the whataboutism because Trump is indefensible and the right knows it. Deflect and ignore. Deflect and ignore. But we all know who the child in the room is whenever Trump is present.

Where is the rule that one can’t ask a followup question? By the way, he did eventually give up the microphone.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

and many believe

Moving on ...

Of course you would.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Bill Maher, a comedian, told a joke (because that’s what comedians do) about Trump and Trump sued him for 5 million dollars (Trump did eventually withdraw the lawsuit though).

Hm, and what kind of joke was that? Something similar to that defamatory ad?

It was something silly about Trump’s parents being Orangutans. Go ahead and look it up for yourself.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

What about his desire to jail for a year anyone who burns a flag?

As stupid and misguided as it is, it is simply not an issue of free speech to me, and I don’t care what the American constitution says about it.

Maybe it’s not an issue to YOU, but to Americans who can be jailed for a year it’s an important free speech issue. We pride ourselves in fighting wars against countries that DON’T have our freedoms. Our soldiers have given their lives so that we can freely express ourselves. Again, banning flag burning is completely antithetical to American values. And Trump would have us look more like the countries whose practices we condemn (e.g. countries that jail you, or worse, for drawing pictures of Mohammed, or for expressing your atheism, etc.). That being said, there’s not exactly tons of people clamoring to burn flags. It’s actually quite rare, but the PRINCIPLE is what’s vitally important. 

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Regarding Sanders’ policies, you’d get much disagreement from a lot of people on whether or not they could be considered “Marxist.”

I couldn’t care less. His policies clearly have nothing to do with cultural Marxism.

What you care is irrelevant. I’m telling you that you’d get much disagreement on that.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Anyway, why are you avoiding the question? Would you vote for Biden or Trump?

How am I avoiding the question, exactly? I clearly said multiple times that I would not vote for Biden.

So does that mean you would vote for Trump? Or that you wouldn’t vote for anyone?

And again:
How do you reconcile Trump’s comments? You can’t be for free speech and at the same time call for jailing those who express their free speech, now can you? Moreover, how could you (or anyone) find this sort of inconsistent and wholly unprincipled behavior appealing in a President? 

Ron

 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  62
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
26 June 2020 01:01
 
MrRon - 25 June 2020 07:32 AM

LOL, you apparently didn’t view the “Exponential threat” clip that the article links to. It’s painfully obvious that it is a random COLLECTION of (actual} Trump quotes and NOT a constructed “speech” that he supposedly uttered. So, no hypocrisy whatsoever.

Don’t act stupid, you know exactly what the issue with the ad is. It was explained in the article. It’s not about whether the phrases were uttered contiguously, clearly they were not, but about how the ad is trying to create the impression that they belong together, be it from the same speech or at least speeches on the same topic, and more specifically, to create the false impression that he called the coronavirus a hoax.

Now, I don’t know enough about the American legal system to say whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not, and I’m not trying to argue that it is good they were sued, but rather against your claims, which, let me remind you, were that Trump is making “aggressive attacks on free speech”. No reasonable person would consider a possibly frivolous lawsuit against a dishonest and manipulative ad an aggressive attack on free speech.

MrRon - 24 June 2020 12:19 PM

But why should Trump be the arbiter of what should or shouldn’t be allowed? Do you think he is free of bias?

What are you talking about? Don’t you know anything about this issue? They were granted a privileged legal status in order to be able to operate at all (because they couldn’t possibly curate all the content they host) because it is in the public interest that they can provide their service, but in return they should obviously provide an open platform in good faith and not do one sided political censorship, or at least that’s what conservatives have been demanding for a long time. It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump being the arbiter of anything.

MrRon - 13 June 2020 03:20 PM

You’d have to ignore the whataboutism because Trump is indefensible and the right knows it. Deflect and ignore. Deflect and ignore. But we all know who the child in the room is whenever Trump is present.

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. We’re talking about whether trying to remove Acosta was an “aggressive attack on free speech” or not.

MrRon - 25 June 2020 07:32 AM

Where is the rule that one can’t ask a followup question? By the way, he did eventually give up the microphone.

I heard there was a rule on how many questions per person are allowed. Not sure if that’s true, but to be honest, it doesn’t really matter. The moment he was asked he should have given up the microphone, anything else is obviously inappropriate behavior.

MrRon - 25 June 2020 07:32 AM

It was something silly about Trump’s parents being Orangutans. Go ahead and look it up for yourself.

Sounds like the kind of thing people have been “canceled” over when directed at leftists. Again, I don’t know enough about the American legal system to say if this is frivolous or legitimate defamation, but to say suing for this is an “aggressive attack against free speech”? Nonsense.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Maybe it’s not an issue to YOU, but to Americans who can be jailed for a year it’s an important free speech issue. We pride ourselves in fighting wars against countries that DON’T have our freedoms. Our soldiers have given their lives so that we can freely express ourselves. Again, banning flag burning is completely antithetical to American values. And Trump would have us look more like the countries whose practices we condemn (e.g. countries that jail you, or worse, for drawing pictures of Mohammed, or for expressing your atheism, etc.). That being said, there’s not exactly tons of people clamoring to burn flags. It’s actually quite rare, but the PRINCIPLE is what’s vitally important.

Seems like you just keep missing the point that I don’t consider this speech.
Besides, in some western countries this is already considered a hate crime. I’m not sure if it is in Switzerland, actually. I wonder, even in America, would it be a hate crime if you burn, e.g., the lgbt flag?

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

What you care is irrelevant. I’m telling you that you’d get much disagreement on that.

What kind of a pointless, lazy argument is that? If you disagree yourself then explain why.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

So does that mean you would vote for Trump?

Yes, obviously. He’s an effective battering ram against cultural Marxism and I can’t imagine him doing something bad enough for that not to be worth it.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

And again:
How do you reconcile Trump’s comments? You can’t be for free speech and at the same time call for jailing those who express their free speech, now can you? Moreover, how could you (or anyone) find this sort of inconsistent and wholly unprincipled behavior appealing in a President? 

And again:
Burning a flag is not speech to me. Whether it falls under certain specific free speech laws or not is irrelevant to that.
And like I also said before, I find the idea far from appealing. Not just forbidding the flag burning but this cringeworthy brand of patriotism and reverence of the flag in general.

[ Edited: 26 June 2020 02:07 by pluka]
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2102
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
26 June 2020 15:32
 
pluka - 26 June 2020 01:01 AM
MrRon - 25 June 2020 07:32 AM

LOL, you apparently didn’t view the “Exponential threat” clip that the article links to. It’s painfully obvious that it is a random COLLECTION of (actual} Trump quotes and NOT a constructed “speech” that he supposedly uttered. So, no hypocrisy whatsoever.

Don’t act stupid, you know exactly what the issue with the ad is. It was explained in the article. It’s not about whether the phrases were uttered contiguously, clearly they were not, but about how the ad is trying to create the impression that they belong together, be it from the same speech or at least speeches on the same topic, and more specifically, to create the false impression that he called the coronavirus a hoax.

No, the ad was designed to showcase Trump’s overall poor response to the pandemic and his poor leadership in general. Trump likes to use the word “hoax” a lot. He’s done it in reference to climate change, the Mueller probe, or just about anything he wants to disparage. So although the ad could have been more explicit about the usage of “hoax”, the larger message is still valid. In fact, I’ll concede to removing that one bit about a hoax and let the rest of the ad speak for itself.     

Now, I don’t know enough about the American legal system to say whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not, and I’m not trying to argue that it is good they were sued, but rather against your claims, which, let me remind you, were that Trump is making “aggressive attacks on free speech”. No reasonable person would consider a possibly frivolous lawsuit against a dishonest and manipulative ad an aggressive attack on free speech.

It’s not just that ad. Have you been paying attention at all?

MrRon - 24 June 2020 12:19 PM

But why should Trump be the arbiter of what should or shouldn’t be allowed? Do you think he is free of bias?

What are you talking about? Don’t you know anything about this issue? They were granted a privileged legal status in order to be able to operate at all (because they couldn’t possibly curate all the content they host) because it is in the public interest that they can provide their service, but in return they should obviously provide an open platform in good faith and not do one sided political censorship, or at least that’s what conservatives have been demanding for a long time. It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump being the arbiter of anything.

Free speech does have it’s limits. For example, one cannot yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater. And Presidents should not be disseminating false or misleading information – particularly potentially harmful information - to their large and captive audience. That being said, censorship can be a thorny and complicated issue. So I’ll admit this is a discussion to be had. However, Trump is heavy-handedly seeking to control the narrative, and that’s what’s so troubling.

MrRon - 13 June 2020 03:20 PM

You’d have to ignore the whataboutism because Trump is indefensible and the right knows it. Deflect and ignore. Deflect and ignore. But we all know who the child in the room is whenever Trump is present.

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. We’re talking about whether trying to remove Acosta was an “aggressive attack on free speech” or not.

In 2018 the Trump administration suspended Acosta’s White House credentials. At the time, it provoked an outcry over freedom of the press. A Trump-appointed judge quickly ruled in Acosta’s favor when the network brought a lawsuit, and his credentials were restored within a couple of weeks. Trump has held a grudge ever since and they have sparred on and off. Additionally, Trump refers to CNN as “fake news.” So you’re missing the forest for the trees when you focus solely on this one little “microphone” incident. 

MrRon - 25 June 2020 07:32 AM

Where is the rule that one can’t ask a followup question? By the way, he did eventually give up the microphone.

I heard there was a rule on how many questions per person are allowed. Not sure if that’s true, but to be honest, it doesn’t really matter. The moment he was asked he should have given up the microphone, anything else is obviously inappropriate behavior.

What’s inappropriate is a President who insists upon sycophant reporters asking him softball questions while avoiding tougher questions that America deserves responses to. And you’ll notice that Trump was the one who set the combative tone right off the bat in that exchange when he rudely said “Here we go”, and then (with hand waving) “come on, come on…” while Acosta was politely starting his question. So I give Acosta credit for hanging in there as long as he could and trying to ask the questions that at least half of the country would like answers to.

MrRon - 25 June 2020 07:32 AM

It was something silly about Trump’s parents being Orangutans. Go ahead and look it up for yourself.

Sounds like the kind of thing people have been “canceled” over when directed at leftists. Again, I don’t know enough about the American legal system to say if this is frivolous or legitimate defamation, but to say suing for this is an “aggressive attack against free speech”? Nonsense.

Again, it’s not about any particular instance. It’s about a wider pattern of behavior.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Maybe it’s not an issue to YOU, but to Americans who can be jailed for a year it’s an important free speech issue. We pride ourselves in fighting wars against countries that DON’T have our freedoms. Our soldiers have given their lives so that we can freely express ourselves. Again, banning flag burning is completely antithetical to American values. And Trump would have us look more like the countries whose practices we condemn (e.g. countries that jail you, or worse, for drawing pictures of Mohammed, or for expressing your atheism, etc.). That being said, there’s not exactly tons of people clamoring to burn flags. It’s actually quite rare, but the PRINCIPLE is what’s vitally important.

Seems like you just keep missing the point that I don’t consider this speech.
Besides, in some western countries this is already considered a hate crime. I’m not sure if it is in Switzerland, actually. I wonder, even in America, would it be a hate crime if you burn, e.g., the lgbt flag?

It’s considered “symbolic speech” – it doesn’t always have to be verbal speech.
And from
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes
“A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.”

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

What you care is irrelevant. I’m telling you that you’d get much disagreement on that.

What kind of a pointless, lazy argument is that? If you disagree yourself then explain why.

Ok, so this has gotten a bit confusing because you had referred to “Marxists” at one point and then you seemed to have transitioned to “cultural Marxists”, so I’m not sure if we’re on the same page here. Seems like there is a disconnect. Either way, I’m not sure that particular point is worth a deep dive at this juncture.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

So does that mean you would vote for Trump?

Yes, obviously. He’s an effective battering ram against cultural Marxism and I can’t imagine him doing something bad enough for that not to be worth it.

What, in your view, is the worst that could happen if Biden were to be elected? Please give details – not just vague generalities.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

And again:
How do you reconcile Trump’s comments? You can’t be for free speech and at the same time call for jailing those who express their free speech, now can you? Moreover, how could you (or anyone) find this sort of inconsistent and wholly unprincipled behavior appealing in a President? 

And again:
Burning a flag is not speech to me. Whether it falls under certain specific free speech laws or not is irrelevant to that.

But in this country flag burning has been ruled to be “constitutionally protected free symbolic speech.”  So when the leader of a country which considers flag burning to be a form of free speech publicly advocates for free speech but then contradicts himself by insisting that we jail flag burners, we have a problem that goes beyond mere flag burning. We have a President who is inconsistent, wholly unprincipled, and possibly ignorant of basic and fundamental laws of his own country. THAT’S the bigger problem here. 

And like I also said before, I find the idea far from appealing. Not just forbidding the flag burning but this cringeworthy brand of patriotism and reverence of the flag in general.

But don’t forget, the faux patriotism and flag reverence can manifest in more concrete and odious ways, such as laws enacted, justices appointed, a push towards jingoism, etc. So it’s not so easy to casually dismiss Trump’s behavior as if nothing worrisome can ever come of it. We’ve already seen how far he is willing to go on this issue. 

Ron

 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  62
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
27 June 2020 03:46
 
MrRon - 26 June 2020 03:32 PM

No, the ad was designed to showcase Trump’s overall poor response to the pandemic and his poor leadership in general. Trump likes to use the word “hoax” a lot. He’s done it in reference to climate change, the Mueller probe, or just about anything he wants to disparage. So although the ad could have been more explicit about the usage of “hoax”, the larger message is still valid. In fact, I’ll concede to removing that one bit about a hoax and let the rest of the ad speak for itself.

No to what? No one’s talking about the merit of the ad apart from the problematic part which the lawsuit was based on. I agree that his response to the virus was stupid and that the ad is trying to show that, but that’s irrelevant to our discussion.

MrRon - 26 June 2020 03:32 PM

It’s not just that ad. Have you been paying attention at all?

I have. You said he made “aggressive attacks on free speech” and then proceeded to give me examples which are far from anything deserving that rhetoric.

MrRon - 24 June 2020 12:19 PM

Free speech does have it’s limits. For example, one cannot yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater. And Presidents should not be disseminating false or misleading information – particularly potentially harmful information - to their large and captive audience. That being said, censorship can be a thorny and complicated issue. So I’ll admit this is a discussion to be had. However, Trump is heavy-handedly seeking to control the narrative, and that’s what’s so troubling.

You’re dancing around the issue. This is not about the limits of free speech laws, it’s about whether the corporations who are given the privileged legal status of “platform” should be allowed to apply their own private rules for censorship to the people on their platform. The conservatives have long been demanding that the laws be changed so that these platforms, which have essentially become an extension of the public square, are required to respect constitutional free speech if they want to keep their privileged legal status, and, let’s be honest, the only reason the left isn’t also demanding it is because they are currently massively benefiting from the bias (did you watch the latest project veritas video?).

MrRon - 25 June 2020 07:32 AM

Again, it’s not about any particular instance. It’s about a wider pattern of behavior.

To make a “wider pattern” deserving of being called “aggressive attacks on free speech” it does require actual individual aggressive attacks on free speech.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

Ok, so this has gotten a bit confusing because you had referred to “Marxists” at one point and then you seemed to have transitioned to “cultural Marxists”, so I’m not sure if we’re on the same page here. Seems like there is a disconnect. Either way, I’m not sure that particular point is worth a deep dive at this juncture.

Fair enough, I accidentally said “social Marxist” when I really meant “cultural Marxist” a few times and I probably dropped the “cultural” a few times even though I was talking about that.
However, in this case I really meant (unqualified) Marxist. It is clearly not inconsistent to be in favor of, e.g., socialized healthcare without wanting abolition of private property unless you believe that democratic socialism is somehow a slippery slope (?).

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

What, in your view, is the worst that could happen if Biden were to be elected? Please give details – not just vague generalities.

It would probably be the last meaningful election. It’s hard to say how fast things would progress to the ultimate goal of the cultural Marxists, but even if their control isn’t yet absolute when his term is over the censorship and manipulation through the tech companies and mainstream media will at that point be enough to sway any later elections which would then be little more than coronations through the DNC.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

But in this country flag burning has been ruled to be “constitutionally protected free symbolic speech.”  So when the leader of a country which considers flag burning to be a form of free speech publicly advocates for free speech but then contradicts himself by insisting that we jail flag burners, we have a problem that goes beyond mere flag burning. We have a President who is inconsistent, wholly unprincipled, and possibly ignorant of basic and fundamental laws of his own country. THAT’S the bigger problem here.

It’s perfectly possible to have a reasonable definition of free speech that doesn’t include flag burning, so I don’t think it’s inconsistent to say you support free speech and want flag burning to be illegal. When it comes to free speech laws, which is not the same as free speech, some countries include it (like the USA, apparently), and others that are still generally considered to have “free speech”, don’t (e.g., Germany).
Since free speech is possible without flag burning calling this an “aggressive attack on free speech” is very questionable.

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

So it’s not so easy to casually dismiss Trump’s behavior as if nothing worrisome can ever come of it.

No one is asking you to.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2102
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
27 June 2020 17:07
 
pluka - 27 June 2020 03:46 AM
MrRon - 26 June 2020 03:32 PM

It’s not just that ad. Have you been paying attention at all?

I have. You said he made “aggressive attacks on free speech” and then proceeded to give me examples which are far from anything deserving that rhetoric.

I disagree.

MrRon - 24 June 2020 12:19 PM

Free speech does have it’s limits. For example, one cannot yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater. And Presidents should not be disseminating false or misleading information – particularly potentially harmful information - to their large and captive audience. That being said, censorship can be a thorny and complicated issue. So I’ll admit this is a discussion to be had. However, Trump is heavy-handedly seeking to control the narrative, and that’s what’s so troubling.

You’re dancing around the issue. This is not about the limits of free speech laws, it’s about whether the corporations who are given the privileged legal status of “platform” should be allowed to apply their own private rules for censorship to the people on their platform. The conservatives have long been demanding that the laws be changed so that these platforms, which have essentially become an extension of the public square, are required to respect constitutional free speech if they want to keep their privileged legal status, and, let’s be honest, the only reason the left isn’t also demanding it is because they are currently massively benefiting from the bias

Look, the President of the United States is threatening to censor social media platforms simply because he doesn’t like what they say. That’s a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Full stop. By the way, as far as I know, Twitter has only added warnings and hyperlinks for additional information to Trump’s tweets rather than completely banning/removing them. I think they also simply disabled a video due to valid copyright concerns.

An analysis of the freedoms, obligations, and responsibilities of the different modern social media companies would probably be a complex undertaking. In many ways, it’s still a work in progress. Both ends of the political spectrum likely have valid (and invalid) concerns. But in the meantime, the President of the U.S. should not be attempting to impose his will on private companies simply because he doesn’t like what they say.


(did you watch the latest project veritas video?)

You mean by James O’keefe? The guy famous for deceptively editing his videos?

MrRon - 25 June 2020 07:32 AM

Again, it’s not about any particular instance. It’s about a wider pattern of behavior.

To make a “wider pattern” deserving of being called “aggressive attacks on free speech” it does require actual individual aggressive attacks on free speech.

And this is where we disagree. I think that what Trump has done (taken individually, or certainly in total) amounts to aggressive attacks on free speech. 

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

What, in your view, is the worst that could happen if Biden were to be elected? Please give details – not just vague generalities.

It would probably be the last meaningful election. It’s hard to say how fast things would progress to the ultimate goal of the cultural Marxists, but even if their control isn’t yet absolute when his term is over the censorship and manipulation through the tech companies and mainstream media will at that point be enough to sway any later elections which would then be little more than coronations through the DNC.

Sounds quite conspiratorial and nefarious. But I’m still looking for specifics. What is the “ultimate goal of the cultural Marxists”? How would the U.S. or the world look or operate differently (and to everyone’s detriment) than it does now?

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

But in this country flag burning has been ruled to be “constitutionally protected free symbolic speech.”  So when the leader of a country which considers flag burning to be a form of free speech publicly advocates for free speech but then contradicts himself by insisting that we jail flag burners, we have a problem that goes beyond mere flag burning. We have a President who is inconsistent, wholly unprincipled, and possibly ignorant of basic and fundamental laws of his own country. THAT’S the bigger problem here.

It’s perfectly possible to have a reasonable definition of free speech that doesn’t include flag burning, so I don’t think it’s inconsistent to say you support free speech and want flag burning to be illegal. When it comes to free speech laws, which is not the same as free speech, some countries include it (like the USA, apparently), and others that are still generally considered to have “free speech”, don’t (e.g., Germany).
Since free speech is possible without flag burning calling this an “aggressive attack on free speech” is very questionable.

Again, I disagree that it’s “very questionable.”

MrRon - 12 June 2020 05:57 PM

So it’s not so easy to casually dismiss Trump’s behavior as if nothing worrisome can ever come of it.

No one is asking you to.

I was merely pointing out that Trump’s behavior should concern us all, despite many on the right being casually dismissive of his behavior on this front. 

Ron

 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  62
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
27 June 2020 23:55
 
MrRon - 27 June 2020 05:07 PM

An analysis of the freedoms, obligations, and responsibilities of the different modern social media companies would probably be a complex undertaking. In many ways, it’s still a work in progress. Both ends of the political spectrum likely have valid (and invalid) concerns. But in the meantime, the President of the U.S. should not be attempting to impose his will on private companies simply because he doesn’t like what they say.

The first amendment doesn’t guarantee their special legal status, though. Of course, removing that would effectively shut those companies down.

What concern does the left have? An overdose of unfair advantages? It is not just the president but half of Americans that see this as a critically urgent issue, with good reason. Would you really disagree that biased censorship on the platforms where a significant part of all interactions between Americans happen could potentially have a huge impact on elections?

Figuring out how to rectify this problem is not really a complex undertaking at all. Simply require them to respect the same rules of free speech as are applied in the public square. No reasonable, unbiased person would disagree with that, would they? Do you disagree with that? Even if you disagree with constitutional free speech (do you?), do you think this is the right way to implement the changes you would like to see, through private companies holding a power that was never anticipated, rather than through the democratic process?

MrRon - 27 June 2020 05:07 PM

You mean by James O’keefe? The guy famous for deceptively editing his videos?

Genetic fallacy. Clearly there is no way this only looks bad because of deceptive editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7o4A16QCxE&feature=emb_logo

MrRon - 27 June 2020 05:07 PM

Sounds quite conspiratorial and nefarious. But I’m still looking for specifics. What is the “ultimate goal of the cultural Marxists”? How would the U.S. or the world look or operate differently (and to everyone’s detriment) than it does now?

I wonder, if I asked this question to you but replaced cultural Marxists with white supremacists or Nazis, would you immediately jump to ad hominem attacks? Would you accuse me of “having revealed my true colors”? Would you immediately disregard everything else I’m saying? Think about that. This is the same thing on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

Just in case you slept through every single history class: Marxism, at the very least, will entail abolition of private property. This is not voluntary and clearly not everyone will want to comply. What happens then?

[ Edited: 28 June 2020 00:56 by pluka]
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2102
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
28 June 2020 15:41
 
pluka - 27 June 2020 11:55 PM
MrRon - 27 June 2020 05:07 PM

An analysis of the freedoms, obligations, and responsibilities of the different modern social media companies would probably be a complex undertaking. In many ways, it’s still a work in progress. Both ends of the political spectrum likely have valid (and invalid) concerns. But in the meantime, the President of the U.S. should not be attempting to impose his will on private companies simply because he doesn’t like what they say.

The first amendment doesn’t guarantee their special legal status, though. Of course, removing that would effectively shut those companies down.

What concern does the left have? An overdose of unfair advantages? It is not just the president but half of Americans that see this as a critically urgent issue, with good reason. Would you really disagree that biased censorship on the platforms where a significant part of all interactions between Americans happen could potentially have a huge impact on elections?

If inserting warnings and links for additional factual information gives the left an “unfair advantage” then how pathetic is the right? And would you really disagree that a President trying to impose his will on private companies because he doesn’t like what they say could potentially have a huge impact on elections?

Figuring out how to rectify this problem is not really a complex undertaking at all. Simply require them to respect the same rules of free speech as are applied in the public square. No reasonable, unbiased person would disagree with that, would they? Do you disagree with that? Even if you disagree with constitutional free speech (do you?), do you think this is the right way to implement the changes you would like to see, through private companies holding a power that was never anticipated, rather than through the democratic process?

But the rules that Trump would enforce is “only speak positively about me, and allow me to post whatever inciteful or potentially harmful information I want.” No reasonable, unbiased person thinks that’s how social media platforms should be run. And I think it’s reasonable that the disseminating of potentially harmful information (especially coming from a U.S. President who has a large and captive audience) should be monitored and flagged as such. Wouldn’t you agree? And you already know my position on constitutional free speech. 

MrRon - 27 June 2020 05:07 PM

You mean by James O’keefe? The guy famous for deceptively editing his videos?

Genetic fallacy. Clearly there is no way this only looks bad because of deceptive editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7o4A16QCxE&feature=emb_logo

Yep, I thought so! Forget it – O’keefe has zero credibility.

Mediabiasfactcheck lists Project Veritas on the extreme end of the bias scale:

“These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. Overall, we rate Project Veritas Right Biased based on story selection that only favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to lack of sourcing and a few failed fact checks.”

MrRon - 27 June 2020 05:07 PM

Sounds quite conspiratorial and nefarious. But I’m still looking for specifics. What is the “ultimate goal of the cultural Marxists”? How would the U.S. or the world look or operate differently (and to everyone’s detriment) than it does now?

I wonder, if I asked this question to you but replaced cultural Marxists with white supremacists or Nazis, would you immediately jump to ad hominem attacks? Would you accuse me of “having revealed my true colors”? Would you immediately disregard everything else I’m saying? Think about that. This is the same thing on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

That’s a non-answer to my question. Besides, you’re the one who brought up cultural Marxism – not me.

Just in case you slept through every single history class: Marxism, at the very least, will entail abolition of private property. This is not voluntary and clearly not everyone will want to comply. What happens then?

So now we’re on to Marxism I see. How many boogeymen do you have?

Personally, I will lose zero sleep over the prospect of losing my property to the state under a “Marxist regime.” I am far more concerned about Trump’s dictatorial and authoritarian proclivities. And his general lack of concern for anyone other than himself and his ratings. Have you noticed? - the U.S.A. is number one by far in coronavirus cases and deaths. And Trump is golfing, holding rallies, and taking senseless photo ops with a bible (which he never even reads). But hey, as long as he looks good…

Ron

[ Edited: 28 June 2020 15:49 by MrRon]
 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  62
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
28 June 2020 16:03
 
MrRon - 28 June 2020 03:41 PM

What concern does the left have? An overdose of unfair advantages? It is not just the president but half of Americans that see this as a critically urgent issue, with good reason. Would you really disagree that biased censorship on the platforms where a significant part of all interactions between Americans happen could potentially have a huge impact on elections?

Obviously inserting “warnings” in political messages of one side is an unfair advantage. Your bias is unbelievable. And this is the absolute mildest it gets. If people who aren’t the president write those same messages they get banned. It also shows that they’re getting more bold that they’re doing this to him now.

MrRon - 28 June 2020 03:41 PM

But the rules that Trump would enforce is “only speak positively about me, and allow me to post whatever inciteful or potentially harmful information I want.

Ridiculous strawman. No one is talking about letting Trump enforce the rules, nor has he ever said that he wants to enforce a rule like this.

MrRon - 27 June 2020 05:07 PM

Yep, I thought so! Forget it – O’keefe has zero credibility.

Mediabiasfactcheck lists Project Veritas on the extreme end of the bias scale:

“These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. Overall, we rate Project Veritas Right Biased based on story selection that only favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to lack of sourcing and a few failed fact checks.”

Wow, the length to which you go in attacking the source just to justify not watching this video.

MrRon - 27 June 2020 05:07 PM

So now we’re on to Marxism I see. How many boogeymen do you have?

Cultural Marxism also includes traditional Marxism.

MrRon - 28 June 2020 03:41 PM

the U.S.A. is number one by far in coronavirus cases and deaths. And Trump is golfing, holding rallies, and taking senseless photo ops with a bible (which he never even
Ron

You are comparing the absolute numbers to those of countries with a fraction of the population, and even bolstering it with rhetoric.
I see two reasonable explanations:
1) You don’t understand the absolute basics of statistics (I doubt it)
2) You’re being intentionally very deceptive
Which one is it? Or do you have another explanation?

[ Edited: 28 June 2020 23:36 by pluka]
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2102
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
29 June 2020 13:49
 
pluka - 28 June 2020 04:03 PM
MrRon - 28 June 2020 03:41 PM

What concern does the left have? An overdose of unfair advantages? It is not just the president but half of Americans that see this as a critically urgent issue, with good reason. Would you really disagree that biased censorship on the platforms where a significant part of all interactions between Americans happen could potentially have a huge impact on elections?

Obviously inserting “warnings” in political messages of one side is an unfair advantage. Your bias is unbelievable. And this is the absolute mildest it gets. If people who aren’t the president write those same messages they get banned. It also shows that they’re getting more bold that they’re doing this to him now.

Since 2015, Trump has tweeted over 20,000 times. Many of those have been provocative. However only a recent few of those 20,000 have actually been singled out for warnings/additional information (and rightly so). So it’s not like Twitter has been conspiring against him all along. To the contrary, he has benefitted greatly by appealing to his base through Twitter. Trump LOVES Twitter. But not if they have the integrity to fact-check him. What does he have to fear from fact-checks? I would like to see ALL politicians – especially Presidents, because of their power to influence - get fact-checked when needed.

Twitter is also being consistent by applying it’s rules to other officials and world leaders. Content will be flagged/censored if it “runs afoul of the guidance of leading public health agencies.” Twitter has actually deleted tweets by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Bolsonaro praised the use of anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine and called for an end to social distancing. And Maduro promoted a “natural brew” to remedy those infected with COVID-19. Twitter said such posts violated its policies, but the company has never deleted a tweet by Trump.

Also, Facebook and other platforms and news outlets have not censored Trump. So it’s not like Trump has no way to get his messages out to the public.

MrRon - 28 June 2020 03:41 PM

But the rules that Trump would enforce is “only speak positively about me, and allow me to post whatever inciteful or potentially harmful information I want.

Ridiculous strawman. No one is talking about letting Trump enforce the rules, nor has he ever said that he wants to enforce a rule like this.

Do you deny that Trump despises and demonizes journalists and news organizations that are critical of him? For crissake he’s the one who popularized the term “FAKE NEWS”!! And he further suggested revoking the broadcast licenses of major news networks he doesn’t like. He also called for the firing of an ESPN employee and he brought a lawsuit against a comedian. So it’s not a stretch at all to infer that if he had his way he would only allow positive coverage of himself.

MrRon - 27 June 2020 05:07 PM

Yep, I thought so! Forget it – O’keefe has zero credibility.

Mediabiasfactcheck lists Project Veritas on the extreme end of the bias scale:

“These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. Overall, we rate Project Veritas Right Biased based on story selection that only favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to lack of sourcing and a few failed fact checks.”

Wow, the length to which you go in attacking the source just to justify not watching this video.

I did watch some of the video. But one doesn’t have to drink the entire carton of milk to determine that it has gone sour. Anyway, I decided to check the integrity of the source. And if James O’keefe videos are the best you can do then I feel sorry for you. 

MrRon - 28 June 2020 03:41 PM

the U.S.A. is number one by far in coronavirus cases and deaths. And Trump is golfing, holding rallies, and taking senseless photo ops with a bible (which he never even
Ron

You are comparing the absolute numbers to those of countries with a fraction of the population, and even bolstering it with rhetoric.
I see two reasonable explanations:
1) You don’t understand the absolute basics of statistics (I doubt it)
2) You’re being intentionally very deceptive
Which one is it? Or do you have another explanation?

China has a much larger population than the United States. India also has a much larger population. And Indonesia is comparable (267 million). Additionally the U.S. has among the highest death RATE. So where is the “deception”?

And if you want rhetoric to go along with it, here you go (these are all Trump quotes). Try to square them with the current situation in the U.S. – 2.6 million cases and 130,000 deaths, along with a recent and very alarming record surge in many states. Does it sound like this was a success for Trump? 

Jan. 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”

Jan. 30: “We think we have it very well under control. We have very little problem in this country at this moment — five — and those people are all recuperating successfully. But we’re working very closely with China and other countries, and we think it’s going to have a very good ending for us … that I can assure you.”

Feb. 10: “Now, the virus that we’re talking about having to do — you know, a lot of people think that goes away in April with the heat — as the heat comes in. Typically, that will go away in April. We’re in great shape though. We have 12 cases — 11 cases, and many of them are in good shape now.”

Feb. 14: “There’s a theory that, in April, when it gets warm — historically, that has been able to kill the virus.  So we don’t know yet; we’re not sure yet. But that’s around the corner.”

Feb. 23: “We have it very much under control in this country.”

Feb. 24: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”

Feb. 26: “So we’re at the low level. As they get better, we take them off the list, so that we’re going to be pretty soon at only five people. And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time. So we’ve had very good luck.”

Feb. 26: “And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.”

Feb. 26: “I think every aspect of our society should be prepared. I don’t think it’s going to come to that, especially with the fact that we’re going down, not up. We’re going very substantially down, not up.”

Feb. 27: “It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.”

Feb. 29: “And I’ve gotten to know these professionals. They’re incredible. And everything is under control. I mean, they’re very, very cool. They’ve done it, and they’ve done it well. Everything is really under control.”

March 4: We have a very small number of people in this country [infected]. We have a big country. The biggest impact we had was when we took the 40-plus people [from a cruise ship]. … We brought them back. We immediately quarantined them. But you add that to the numbers. But if you don’t add that to the numbers, we’re talking about very small numbers in the United States.”

March 7: “No, I’m not concerned at all. No, we’ve done a great job with it.”

March 9: “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!”

March 10: “And we’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.”

And one gem from Trump’s Press Secretary Kayleigh MceNany back in February:

“Absolutely, this president will always put America first, he will always protect American citizens. We will not see diseases like the coronavirus come here.”

Also, Trump recently admitted to asking his people to SLOW DOWN THE TESTING! Why? Because testing reveals new cases which increases the numbers which make him look bad. But we can’t isolate and/or treat people unless we know who has the disease. Testing literally SAVES LIVES. For Trump to discourage testing is at the least highly unethical and immoral and at most criminal. 


So I see two reasonable explanations:

1) You are not even paying attention to the statistics
2) Defending Trump is more important to you than the facts

Which one is it?

Ron

 

 
pluka
 
Avatar
 
 
pluka
Total Posts:  62
Joined  15-01-2020
 
 
 
29 June 2020 22:13
 
MrRon - 29 June 2020 01:49 PM


the U.S.A. is number one by far in coronavirus cases and deaths

MrRon - 29 June 2020 01:49 PM

the U.S. has among the highest death RATE. So where is the “deception”?

(highlighting by me)

What? What? What???
You think I’m letting you go on this if you try to drown it in a whole barrel of red herring?

[ Edited: 29 June 2020 22:17 by pluka]
 
‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 >