Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts



The basic problem is the government has too much power and control.  If we could dial it back to what it was intended to be, then it wouldn't matter who was in the White House or in Congress.  With so much direct involvement in the lives of every American, the stakes are too high to let the other side (whichever side that happens to be) be in control.  


That control will be exerted by someone. It could be pushed down to states. And large businesses hold lots of influence, and to some extent, power and control. It may not be a formal, defined power or control, but may exist in practice (see the whole discussion about twitter).

You're right, power and control doesn't necessarily have to be at the federal level, but stripping it from the federal government doesn't magically solve the problem, just shifts the issues.

Unless we are willing to return to a largely agricultural society and don't allow power to accumulate in private organizations such as businesses. But that'd require figuring out what to do with the much larger population we have and giving up many modern conveniences we take for granted. As well as reducing our influence in the world.

You could push power (and responsibility) back down to the states (arguably the original intent), but that'll never happen now because many smaller, less productive states would never allow it since it will cause then to lose funding. What happens when everyone leaves say North Dakota for better opportunities elsewhere, and the state loses any real economic power, reducing tax revenue, and preventing the state from providing basic government services? Does the state default? Get annexed? Who takes care of the citizens for basic services (like vital records or courts)?

Does a state like California then get more say at the federal level because it contributes more to the federal government? And if not, what is it's incentive to stay when money flows out of state without a perceived return in value?
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pbar said:

The basic problem is the government has too much power and control.  If we could dial it back to what it was intended to be, then it wouldn't matter who was in the White House or in Congress.  With so much direct involvement in the lives of every American, the stakes are too high to let the other side (whichever side that happens to be) be in control.  

Get rid of 90% of our military then, because the strong, overreaching federal government and its ability to impose broad sweeping taxes is the only way we as a group were able to procure 20 B-2s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pbar said:

The basic problem is the government has too much power and control.  If we could dial it back to what it was intended to be, then it wouldn't matter who was in the White House or in Congress.  With so much direct involvement in the lives of every American, the stakes are too high to let the other side (whichever side that happens to be) be in control.  

I'd rather the federal gov't have this power, that is buffeted by elections and the judicial branch, than unanswerable corporations whose only motivation is profit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://deadline.com/2021/01/parler-ceo-says-service-dropped-by-every-vendor-and-could-end-the-company-1234670607/

The invisible hand of the free market, folks. Maybe the citizens of MAGAstan should use some of that QAnon patriot energy to learn how to code and develop their own apps instead of....whatever it is that they do....

I don't know, maybe buy some more guns and shoot at Twitter, that'll probably solve the problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jazzdude said:

I get your sentiment. And I think generally, social media tries to be careful and walk a fine line. Because again, there's a business case to be made for having as wide of a user base as possible to increase their revenue.

But Jan 6 crossed a line for many companies who felt that the violent actions were organized using their services, so they blocked people they believe we're inciting that violence to prevent future acts using their services. The president's speech isn't limited by being blocked by twitter; he literally has a press room for official communications, and his campaign to get out political messages.

Plus the argument that 1st amendment principles doesn't apply to modern communications isn't a strong one. Government can't restrict an individual's speech, but businesses can control what they publish. For publishers, they don't have to publish opinion columns that they don't like. For platforms, they generally aren't held responsible for the opinions of those speaking on their platform (a theater isn't liable for the opinions expressed by a performer or speaker who performs on the stage). Those concepts can be directly applied to new communications technology since the underlying principles remain true, and have been codified in section 230.

Which is why Trump and the Republicans have been adamant about repealing section 230, and tied increasing Covid stimulus payments to repealing section 230. Repealing it allows people or organizations to sue a platform such as twitter for perceived unfairness. Which sounds good at a surface level, but opens the door for continuous frivolous lawsuits, especially from political agents, against the platform, rendering the business model unviable for social media platforms. So then everyone loses that platform due to political views of a few well connected and wealthy individuals.

Will respectfully disagree with you, if they cared so much about preventing users organizing violent activities, preventing organizing and the promotion of violent / false information they would have cracked down very hard sts during last summer's riots/lootings/assults on gov buildings, police departments, etc... but those brave SJWs were fighting systemic racism by looting the Walgreens, burning down a Wendy's, crashing thru private gates on to private property threatening home owners who were the wrong skin color so that's ok.  

As to restricting 1st amendment rights and platforms that have been given a special legal carve out with the expectation they will not moderate content that is not obscene or encourages/direct violence but that they find offensive, I think they owe the users the benefit of the doubt and should have to document to the government and user why they blocked this or that post and or user was de-platformed.

They say they are a neutral platform but they act like a publisher selectively, my and others' two cents.

4 hours ago, Prozac said:

So your fellow Americans are your enemy? Because they espouse a different viewpoint? Isn’t this this the same position that you criticize radical leftists for taking? Is the answer to the radical left an even more radical tack from the right? That seems to be the position of a lot of my countrymen at the moment and it’s what concerns me most for the future of our republic. 

They are acting like I'm their enemy because I espouse a different viewpoint so why is it unreasonable to view them the way they view me?  To quote Spies Like Us:  "Naive wishing for peace is the surest possible way to encourage an aggressor". I would extend that sentiment to the current political fight and argue that is you don't fight back with them with similar weapons and vigor you only encourage further conflict as they will interpret that not as character but as weakness.

I'm not cynical nor sentimental, things change and we have to change with the times.  I'm for change not because I hate my country, the people in it who think differently than me or any other reason, I'm for change because we need it.  It is obvious that we have grown apart and keeping us under a system that requires an enormous amount of national  consensus to function as designed that we can no longer generate is insane.

The republic as it exists currently may not be the best form of the American country, you only move forward and never go back to what was and we may need to move to a new political arrangement on the North American continent.  Still a united political entity but something different with a vastly more autonomous political units.

As they say the Constitution is not a suicide pact, it is perverted by some now to dominate and take advantage of others in ways that disregard their fundamental sovereignty over local affairs, their personal choices and has changed into over reach that abuses them while claiming they are morally reprehensible for who they are and who their ancestors were.  

The Republic as it was intended to be, majority rule with minority rights along with fundamental unalienable rights, it is not delivering that anymore.  

It's not likely to happen but a Constitutional Convention is necessary.

4 hours ago, pawnman said:

The fact that we view people with a different political opinion as "enemies" is a big part of the problem.

Ref my above statement but I would offer that the Left of late is more guilty of this than the Right.  

When you frame your enemies as morally reprehensible or deplorable, with both sides holding irreconcilable positions this is inevitable.

4 hours ago, slackline said:

If this isn't a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what would be🤣

Everyone's guilty, everyone's innocent.  You just have to fight for yours and your side and the other side does the same.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Negatory said:

Get rid of 90% of our military then, because the strong, overreaching federal government and its ability to impose broad sweeping taxes is the only way we as a group were able to procure 20 B-2s.

Nice strawman.  But fine with me.  Coast Guard is the only service that defends the homeland as it's primary mission.   The rest of us are defending our freeloading "allies" and corporate access to overseas markets.   See, two can do this strawman thing.

Edited by pbar
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

As to restricting 1st amendment rights and platforms that have been given a special legal carve out with the expectation they will not moderate content that is not obscene or encourages/direct violence but that they find offensive, I think they owe the users the benefit of the doubt and should have to document to the government and user why they blocked this or that post and or user was de-platformed.

They warned the president multiple times, and provided an explanation after the banning for Twitter.  Does this not meet your requirement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They warned the president multiple times, and provided an explanation after the banning for Twitter.  Does this not meet your requirement?

It may be the homework they turned in but it’s an F
If he is unacceptable then why is this turd still on and his post still up?



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/12/29/david-cross-defends-saying-i-want-blood-after-biden-called-for-healing-i-was-referring-to-menstrual-blood/amp/

You can’t play a fair game if the players aren’t treated equally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:


It may be the homework they turned in but it’s an F
If he is unacceptable then why is this turd still on and his post still up?

 

 

 


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/12/29/david-cross-defends-saying-i-want-blood-after-biden-called-for-healing-i-was-referring-to-menstrual-blood/amp/

You can’t play a fair game if the players aren’t treated equally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Edit to clarify: of course everyone should be held to the same standard, but comparing anyone to Trump right off the bat eliminates anything resembling a "like" comparison.  You just seem angry that Trump's bully pulpit was finally yanked. Just the perception. Maybe that's not the case.

 

Do you even hear your own double standard sometimes?  Of course that is an unacceptable tweet.  Does he have a history like Trump did of posting inflammatory things?  Does he have a following of 88M people?  If the answer to either of those things is no, he's probably got some slack to play with. Even if he has a history, does anyone care what he thinks, so is it therefore likely that he could incite violence on the level Trump did, or even at all?

 

Just thoughts, but it seems as if you're so bent on the left being wrong, evil or whatever it is you need to tell yourself to sleep at night that it doesn't matter what anyone says.  You'll make an argument to counter everything anyone says...  It's like I'm talking with my teenagers!

Edited by slackline
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pbar said:

Nice strawman.  But fine with me.  Coast Guard is the only service that defends the homeland as it's primary mission.   The rest of us are defending our freeloading "allies" and corporate access to overseas markets.   See, two can do this strawman thing.

Fair enough, my point wasn’t well connected.


It’s just blatantly ironic that the “small government” side believes that the power of government should be diminished, while at the same time also typically believing that we should have either the same size or bigger military.

And thats with the military accounting for over 50% of the discretionary spending of the government. And yes, I do believe the power of government is generally about directly proportional to the amount of money it expends.

What should the government power be? No income tax, like the 1700s/1800s? Or is WWI your opus magnus? Maybe Reagan years? It’s a spectrum.

Edited by Negatory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slackline said:

Edit to clarify: of course everyone should be held to the same standard, but comparing anyone to Trump right off the bat eliminates anything resembling a "like" comparison.  You just seem angry that Trump's bully pulpit was finally yanked. Just the perception. Maybe that's not the case.

Do you even hear your own double standard sometimes?  Of course that is an unacceptable tweet.  Does he have a history like Trump did of posting inflammatory things?  Does he have a following of 88M people?  If the answer to either of those things is no, he's probably got some slack to play with. Even if he has a history, does anyone care what he thinks, so is it therefore likely that he could incite violence on the level Trump did, or even at all?

Just thoughts, but it seems as if you're so bent on the left being wrong, evil or whatever it is you need to tell yourself to sleep at night that it doesn't matter what anyone says.  You'll make an argument to counter everything anyone says...  It's like I'm talking with my teenagers!

The left is just wrong, I just like pointing it out.  I've got no argument with someone from the left saying the same about the right.  

As far as making arguments to counter everyone on this forum not true.  Right now I'll admit I'm running contrary to several active posters as they are to me, if we just come here to agree to each others views and agree with what others say then its not particularly interesting or worthy of anyone's attention.  

I'll make an argument every time against any point, thought, position or idea I don't agree with or like in a free forum where open discussion is to be had.

I'm not for double standards, I just think all should be held to a basic standard and some held to the basic and higher standards.  Trump regularly falls short of the higher standards and is reprimanded accordingly, it just pisses me off to see others at or near his level not held to that higher standard.  Cross may be at some lower level but still should not be allowed to skate on that, just my two cents.

I'll just agree to disagree with you and if I remind you of your teenagers they must be smart as hell.

Edited by Clark Griswold
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Will respectfully disagree with you, if they cared so much about preventing users organizing violent activities, preventing organizing and the promotion of violent / false information they would have cracked down very hard sts during last summer's riots/lootings/assults on gov buildings, police departments, etc... but those brave SJWs were fighting systemic racism by looting the Walgreens, burning down a Wendy's, crashing thru private gates on to private property threatening home owners who were the wrong skin color so that's ok.  

Our country has a long and distinguished history of race riots. No big deal. Know what we don’t have a history of? Fuckin’ confederate flags in the fuckin’ US Capitol, that’s what. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our country has a long and distinguished history of race riots. No big deal. Know what we don’t have a history of? in’ confederate flags in the in’ US Capitol, that’s what. 
Not to mentioned straight up legal racism in our country, which contributed to those race riots. But progressives of those eras pushed for reform.

That's not to say every progressive agenda item is right or justified, but sometimes maintaining a comfortable status quo for a select segment of the population isn't the right answer for the nation, even if you are a conservative. That doesn't mean to just accept what the left has to say, but to challenge it and refine where the country should go on a particular issue through an examination of what we value and why.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Our country has a long and distinguished history of race riots. No big deal. Know what we don’t have a history of? Fuckin’ confederate flags in the fuckin’ US Capitol, that’s what. 

Race riot seems worse to me as people physically harming each other based on skin color but I understand the outrage. 

I'm a Southerner, don't own a Confederate battle flag nor have displayed one and I didn't like it being in the US Capitol but keep it all in perspective.  All of those guys could have been put down by the Capitol Police but weren't not because they were mainly white but because likely they had evacuated all the Reps and their staffs, they didn't want to kill a bunch of civilians even though they were acting like a-holes and I'm not sure if someone was thinking this strategically as this event was happening but they don't want to give them martyrs like the Nazis got prior to seizing power in the Beer Haul Putsch.  The Nazis used this as lore and to animate and rally their supporters, venerating the 16 killed there.

Don't give them more reasons to hate you.  Treat the cause of the disease not the symptom(s).  

There have been no firing lines or volleys fired into BLM/Antifa riots even as they have relentlessly have attacked and attempted arson on government buildings and private property, another police force took the same tack and even though it is embarrassing and frustrating, what makes us look more like and in fact become more like a failing state than large scale live fire engagements on civilian protests that get out of hand?

The BLM/Antifa shit has calmed down a good bit and at its high point I was as pissed as I could be and when those good for nothing vandals showed up to tear down a statue I wanted the police to roll in there and kick ass indiscriminately, that was wrong and I'm glad no US police force did that.  The 68 Democratic Convention riots, the Kent State incident, the Pettus Bridge / Bloody Sunday, etc... those are long in the past but still echo when we beat down people who sometimes were doing wrong sometimes not (particularly Pettus Bridge), its frustrating but lethal force should be rare even when quelling riots in what we still call and I hope is the Free World.

Take heart, no other flag flies there right now and that is what matters.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

its frustrating but lethal force should be rare even when quelling riots in what we still call and I hope is the Free World.

Take heart, no other flag flies there right now and that is what matters.

Love this sentiment.  It would solve a ton of our country's current issues!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



As to restricting 1st amendment rights and platforms that have been given a special legal carve out with the expectation they will not moderate content that is not obscene or encourages/direct violence but that they find offensive, I think they owe the users the benefit of the doubt and should have to document to the government and user why they blocked this or that post and or user was de-platformed.
They say they are a neutral platform but they act like a publisher selectively, my and others' two cents.


Social media hasn't been given a legal carve out anymore than a business that owns a theater/stage has, or any private gathering. A private theater running an open mic night can cut the mic off on a speaker who's opinions they feel are inappropriate without repercussions from the government. Or they could choose not to. It's their mic and venue, and they can choose who to let up on their stage. Same goes in my backyard, if someone is acting up and I don't like it, I can tell them to get off my property without fear of the government telling me I have to let that individual state their opinion in my yard. Same idea applies to social media. Even to this forum, which falls under the social media umbrella; our mods shouldn't have to justify to the government why a post was removed or why SpecOpsFighterPilot was banned. Social media platforms can moderate, but they aren't legally required to. Not to say they won't, but they'll do enough to stay out of civil or criminal courts, which a lot of their current efforts are focused on (blocking and reporting to the government things such as child porn, murders, etc), and I'm sure they do a lot of work with law enforcement behind the scenes. But requiring them to moderate everything leads to a very ugly world: someone would have to be the arbiter of truth and appropriateness, or the business case goes away due to the workload required and the company closes.

So who owns the truth and arbitrates what is acceptable? A private company not held to public responsibility? Does the government step in and give the private companies the rules users must abide by in their speech on the platforms?

If a platform has to justify blocking a user to the government, then the government is in the position of now restricting that individual's free speech, by agreeing that the block is legitimate. That is not a place we want this country to go, and violates the underlying principles of the first amendment you are arguing we need to protect. It's something some on the left have wanted, and now I'm surprised many "small government" conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon for more government control in regulating what we can and cannot say. If the government is granted that ability, it won't be long until it starts to block criticism of the government.

You don't have "rights" on a private platform-your use of that service is dependent on both parties (you and the company providing the service) agreement to use that service, and that agreement can be terminated by either party at their leisure. This is the same as a store asking (or forcing) you to leave their place of business for causing a disturbance.

If you don't like it, go somewhere else. If there's nowhere else to go, well, apply some of that good ol' American entrepreneurial spirit and start your own platform business. If the people want want you're selling, you'll also have the added benefit of getting rich. The American dream :) This is what the free market brings: competition. If there's a need it the on the market, or you don't like what's on the open market, build a business to fill that need, and if your product or service is better, then people will come to your business. And this is what should happen in social media: let the market decide. Users will go to the platform they like, and if they don't like it, they will leave. If you don't like what twitter is doing, quit using twitter and go somewhere else. Vote with your feet.

There is no such thing as a neutral platform; they will skew with the users and moderators. And that's stuff that changes over time. But for most, the common social media outlets are good enough for most who use them to get their full of updates on friends and family, and cute pictures of cats and dogs.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pcola said:


Then why was it the #1 app downloaded on the App Store when it was taken down?
 

Maybe because interest in a thing tends to surge when it becomes the center of a national scandal/media shitstorm. It's so weird but for some reason I have a hard time believing a fringe media echo chamber with 1/50th the users of Twitter grew organically into the most popular app on the internet. Or am I making too much sense? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you’re actually missing the point entirely. When it became apparent that the leftist tech/social media giants were unabashedly censoring the speech of prominent right voices, the next move was clear. Do what everyone said (which has been said on this very thread several times): create your own platform. The platform luckily already existed and people naturally flocked to it (hence the recent surge in downloads you just shrugged off.) If you believe Parler was killed because it’s a threat to national security than you might want to expand your critical thinking skills. Parler was killed in an effort to maintain control of the narrative.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, pcola said:


Then why was it the #1 app downloaded on the App Store when it was taken down?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

What? I was talking about the comparison to AETC and it not being a healthy group of people.  If you'd like to go on Parlor, well now you can't.  But there's a few sites grabbing responses to "leaders" (ex. Sidney Powell, Flynn) on there and you should look at those responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? I was talking about the comparison to AETC and it not being a healthy group of people.  If you'd like to go on Parlor, well now you can't.  But there's a few sites grabbing responses to "leaders" (ex. Sidney Powell, Flynn) on there and you should look at those responses.

My apologies to you then. I assumed you were affirming the misconception that Parler predominantly consists of social media misfits. And it is spelled with an “er”. And actually you still can. But we’ll see for how long...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, pcola said:


My apologies to you then. I assumed you were affirming the misconception that Parler is predominantly construed of social media misfits. And it is spelled with an “er”. And actually you still can. But we’ll see for how long...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I was construing it's got a problem with a large amount of toxic people, militias fomenting insurrection and neo-nazis.  But social media misfits are ok.

And we're not fucking, so I'll spell whatever I want however I want.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...