The Next President is...

[jazzdude]

The far right MAGA breaking off from the GOP will hurt the GOP in the near term, but will help in the long term.

It allows the GOP to no longer have to cater to the extremists in the party, and allow them to appeal to more moderate voters.

Plus it starts to break down the 2 party system, which is a good thing.

[pawnman]

1 minute ago, jazzdude said:

The far right MAGA breaking off from the GOP will hurt the GOP in the near term, but will help in the long term.

It allows the GOP to no longer have to cater to the extremists in the party, and allow them to appeal to more moderate voters.

Plus it starts to break down the 2 party system, which is a good thing.

People thought the same thing about the Tea party.  How'd that work out?

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

No one but thru our everyday economic actions and choices we must support institutions that support the people and organizations that affirm and reflect our values, beliefs and existence

You should not trade with your enemy beyond what is absolutely necessary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

[slackline]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

All true but it is sheer enraging lying hypocrisy of it all while using a law designed for a different purpose in frankly a different time (nascent beginning of widespread commercial and personal use of the internet) for a purpose no one would want have happen to them if the roles were reversed

At some point those on the right must realize the current form of the left doesn’t believe they have a right to exist or to exist without being oppressed and attacked using any means at their disposal inside and outside the political sphere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

[17D_guy]

11 hours ago, Pooter said:

The problem Parler has is that they are the dumping ground for everyone that got kicked off normal social media for rules violations. This isn't a healthy pool of people from which to draw your user base. Think of it like AETC.

This is perfect.

[jazzdude]

People thought the same thing about the Tea party.  How'd that work out?

The GOP didn't want to let go of them in the name of keeping a solid voting block against the Democrats, and gave in to a lot of what the tea party wanted.

But in return, the GOP started selling out it's ideals out to their fringe, and probably led to Trump becoming the GOP nominee in 2016.

Hopefully the GOP learned it's lesson about catering to the fringe and cuts the "patriots" loose before they lose what remaining credibility they have left.

[Negatory]

8 minutes ago, pawnman said:

People thought the same thing about the Tea party.  How'd that work out?

True that. It’s not going to do jack.

Moderate dems still have to vote with full up communists. Just like moderate reps will still have to vote with full up Nazis.

Ranked choice voting and a transition towards a parliamentary system is the solution. But that would require the nation to admit that the two party system (which is great for those currently in power) isn’t working.

[pbar]

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.  

Edited January 10, 2021 by pbar

[jazzdude]

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?

[N730]

Doesn't Trump still have the POTUS Twitter account? It's not twitters fault that he always insisted on using his personal account and still isn't using that one.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[Negatory]

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.

[17D_guy]

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.

[Negatory]

Lol at some people saying the free market is anti conservative now. The hypocrisy is reaching critical levels.

[slackline]

Collin Powell explains why he can't be GOP anymore

For all those pseudo Patriots, here's a real one.  If you've never seen him speak live, you've missed out. I'm not a fan of his wife at all because she forbade him from seeking public office. I understand it, but we needed him, and she wouldn't let him.

[Clark Griswold]

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.

[pbar]

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 January 11, 2021 by pbar

[17D_guy]

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?

[Clark Griswold]

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

[slackline]

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 January 11, 2021 by slackline

[Negatory]

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 January 11, 2021 by Negatory

[Clark Griswold]

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 January 11, 2021 by Clark Griswold

[Homestar]

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. 

[jazzdude]

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.

[Clark Griswold]

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.

[slackline]

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!