Utopia Talk - Politics - The age of mass censorship 2

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Apr 16 15:53:13 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / The age of mass censorship 2

Rugian
Member Sun Jan 10 12:53:47
Jergul

1. The Senate Majority Leader is not the President Pro Tempore.

2. I am okay with lengthy jail terms with those who showed up with clear intent to harm some people. Throw the book at ziptie guy, I'm all for it.

You though are taking a few bad apples and falsely applying their motive to the entire crowd. Moreover, you have not done the same thing with BLM/antifa rioters in the past.

Care to explain the discrepancy?

jergul
large member Sun Jan 10 13:00:32
Ruggy
1. Great, now you want me to read up on the byzantine nuances to who exactly holds that role when the same logic stands - Congress is extremely vulnerable when gathered and with insurectionists rampaging through the halls were it is gathered.

The gameplan was the same for Trump as for the insurectionists. Block the reading somehow so that the outcome was determined by congressional state groups - thus allowing Trump to win.

Would you have favoured such an outcome yourself (you would have been disgustingly smug. That is not hard to imagine).

2. No discrepancy. I assume the rule of law. The courts will sort out who is guilty of what.

Rugian
Member Sun Jan 10 13:26:41
Jergul

Understanding the roles of the officers of Congress isn't exactly rocket science. Is it really that hard for you to differentiate between a President and a party leader?

You essentially just confused Erna Solberg with Tone Wilhelmsen Trøen.

State blocs would have only been used to determine the president if no candidate had received at least 270 votes. That would have required Congress to first decide not to certify at least 36 votes. Feel free to explain to me how the rioters were realistically going to accomplish that.

To be frank, you are putting quite a spin on things. The aim of the protest was to pressure members of Congress to vote a certain way. That's a common goal of protests and there's nothing wrong with that. Then the protest got out of hand and turned into a riot.

If we take out the small number of people that showed up with zipties, then what is your argument that this is any different from a BLM protest that results in neighborhoods being burned down?

2. Holy dodge Batman.

Sam Adams
Member Sun Jan 10 13:36:44
Trying to ban parler is typical of the far left censorship that we all have grown to expect.

Rugian
Member Sun Jan 10 13:39:12
Sam

"If you don't like Twitter, build your own site."

Leftists are such fuxking sheep. Their beliefs constantly change depending on what they're arguing for/against.

Paramount
Member Sun Jan 10 13:39:31
But you can still stand on a street corner and parlay.

habebe
Member Sun Jan 10 13:41:16
damn this thread took off...

jergul
large member Sun Jan 10 13:43:44
Ruggy
By physically removing 36 votes for Biden for example. What is not there cannot be certified.

Or by creating a physical context where reading is impossible. Occupations with hostages can last for 100ds of days.

By physically blocking key persons from doing their constitutional duty. You established that two people had to be removed for that to happen.

Alternatively just hold enough senators to support a quorum call being unsuccessful. Or hold enough democratic senators to support a quorum overturning the election.

You know as well as I do that Trump and his supporters were scattershooting the verification process in the hopes that something would give.

How many people have been arrested so far? 28?

Also, we are starting to see the contures of former regime loyalists in the security forces facilitating the takover of the capitol.

jergul
large member Sun Jan 10 13:44:57
Sammy
Amazon, google and apple are far left?

Rugian
Member Sun Jan 10 13:55:02
Jergul

How ridiculous can you get? If the rioters had managed to destroy 36 ballots, the count would have been adjourned until backup copies could be overnighted.

No one would have seriously supported a count that excluded physically destroyed votes.

President Pro Tempore can be bestowed on any senator the Senate chooses. So no, not just two.

You seriously think the rioters could have taken 50 Senators hostage in order to deny a quorum? Are you for real?

No senators supported overturning the election. A small number supported decertifying votes from states where the executive and judiciary had arguably taken illegal measures to influence the voting process.

This talk of insurrection and holding Congress hostage is honestly starting to come off as some Tom Clancy fantasy land buttery. Please try to come back to reality my friend.

Rugian
Member Sun Jan 10 13:55:37
Jergul

All three companies lean *heavily* left on social issues, yes.

tumbleweed
the wanderer Sun Jan 10 14:02:15
"No senators supported overturning the election"

really? does that include Tuberville?

& if the objections had worked, Biden wouldn't get to 270

also, it's Trump who put out that Pence could stop it (& the cultists clearly believed it, hence the 'hang Mike Pence' chants & how they now seem to want him dead more than any Democrat)... so why wouldn't they believe their interruption could stop it? Trump claimed states were ready to change their electors, they just needed to prevent this certification

Rugian
Member Sun Jan 10 14:12:30
Tw

Yes, including Tuberville. He only committed to challenging AZ.

The objections wouldn't have worked. These were widely acknowledged to be protest votes.

Trump clearly told the crowd that the purpose of marching to the Capitol was to clearly make their voices heard. You can certainly argue that he was playing with fire, but to imply that he intended to have the crowd hang Mike Pence or overturn the election is ridiculous.

tumbleweed
the wanderer Sun Jan 10 14:12:57
"Congress is adjourned. Send the elector choice back to the legislatures."
~ Kelli Ward, Arizona GOP chairwoman

tweeted during insurrection, after congress had to flee (shows the mindset of cultists, from one who should know better)

& Trump had posted a letter from PA legislature claiming they wanted to change electors (& claimed all swing states wanted to)

tumbleweed
the wanderer Sun Jan 10 14:15:49
he didn't intend for them to hang Mike Pence to overturn election, but he told them Mike COULD stop it, & they OBVIOUSLY believed it, & then were told Mike failed them

if Pence can stop it all by preventing the vote, is it such a stretch to believe they thought they could prevent it by interrupting the vote? (Kelli Ward believed it, a GOP chairwoman)

Trump was pretending like things were just about to swing his way w/ states wanting to change electors (as i keep noting :p)

Rugian
Member Sun Jan 10 14:16:15
I mean, let's just play this thing through. Say the rioters managed to hang Mike Pence and kill/capture over 100 Democratic representatives. The remaining rump of Congress, looking down the barrel of a gun, decides to decertify several states and re-elects Trump.

In what universe would that result *ever* have been respected? That outcome quite simply defies all logic.

tumbleweed
the wanderer Sun Jan 10 14:22:36
you are ignoring the cultists believe every word Trump says

Trump told them election was stolen, Trump said he had proof now that was 'certified' whatever that meant, Trump told them states were willing to change electors

they believed they were being patriotic & saving America

jergul
large member Sun Jan 10 14:38:29
Ruggy
There are not clear cut constitutional procedures for doing either.

Tw underlines an important point. It does not matter what is realistic. It matters what the insurectionists thought they could achieve.

Most there thought they could change the election outcome in one way or another.

Anyone inside thinking they were doing something to change the outcome of the election are guilty of insurection.

Y2A
Member Sun Jan 10 15:02:04
"In what universe would that result *ever* have been respected? That outcome quite simply defies all logic."

I don't think you understand how coups work. the legitimacy of the result over the general population is irrelevant.

Y2A
Member Sun Jan 10 15:02:04
"In what universe would that result *ever* have been respected? That outcome quite simply defies all logic."

I don't think you understand how coups work. the legitimacy of the result over the general population is irrelevant.

Sam Adams
Member Sun Jan 10 15:11:57
'Amazon, google and apple are far left?"

They are certainly caving to left wing pressure.

Nekran
Member Sun Jan 10 15:45:40
We all know that they purely look at what they figure makes them most money. Amazon is not caving to left wing pressure to pay their workers a decent wage, for instance.

werewolf dictator
Member Sun Jan 10 18:14:31
"if you don't want to live in a one party system with mass censorship then all you have to do is start your own country"

- russia-scapegoating nazis after using reichstag fire to silence opposition

habebe
Member Sun Jan 10 19:23:19
We seen the rise of Fox news, why? their was a desire for it.Now there is a desire for a media Platform(s) for conservatives, it seems the most logical next step is for that nees to be filled likley by many platforms until the dust settles and a few win out.

Unfortunately, this will likley further divide the country

jergul
large member Sun Jan 10 20:04:01
That is why Pence has to be the next presidential candidate. The GOP has to peel the evangelicals off from the Trump base and return them to the fold of megachurches and religious broadcasting.

habebe
Member Sun Jan 10 20:45:37
I don't know that that is feasible.Among Republicans Trump is still as popular as ever.

Wrath of Orion
Member Sun Jan 10 20:57:04
"Now there is a desire for a media Platform(s) for conservatives"

No, a desire for a platform willing to allow hate speech, threats, and the spreading of lies in an attempt to undermine free and fair elections.

Rational conservatives are still welcome on Twitter, etc. Take note that "rational conservative" doesn't describe you and other Trump fluffer retards.

habebe
Member Sun Jan 10 22:15:32
Reasonable people, you know like heads of terrorist organizations, right?

jergul
large member Mon Jan 11 01:35:52
habebe
Feasible if the Senate convicts.

Daemon
Member Mon Jan 11 09:27:25
I always knew that Rugian would fall in love with Merkel one day:

http://abc...-eviction-problematic-75174090

BERLIN -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel considers U.S. President Donald Trump's eviction from Twitter by the company “problematic,” her spokesman said Monday.

Twitter permanently suspended Trump from the microblogging platform on Friday, citing a “risk of further incitement of violence” in the wake of the storming of the U.S. Capitol by supporters of the outgoing president.

Asked about Twitter's decision, Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said the operators of social media platforms “bear great responsibility for political communication not being poisoned by hatred, by lies and by incitement to violence.”

He said it's right not to “stand back” when such content is posted, for example by flagging it.

But Seibert also said that the freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of “elementary significance.”

“This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,” he told reporters in Berlin. “Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the U.S. president have now been permanently blocked.”

Facebook on Thursday suspended Trump’s account through Jan. 20, the day of President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration, and possibly indefinitely.

Merkel herself does not have a Twitter account, although Seibert does and many German government ministers do.

Cherub Cow
Member Mon Jan 11 11:01:59
The Twitter CEO probably just wanted his Harrison Ford "How dare *you*, sir!" moment by censoring a sitting U.S. President. And like they've said for years, Twitter represents international values, not American values or even Western values (e.g., Jack Dorsey on JRE; March 5, 2019; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ ). So, if they find good market share in countries that censor free speech or have low bars for incitement, then that's enough for them. Just keep giving them money as they "fuck you" power-smile and undermine American democracy ;)

Sam Adams
Member Mon Jan 11 11:25:42
Jesus... you know the US leftists are off the fucking rails when merkel is the voice of reason.

CrownRoyal
Member Mon Jan 11 12:57:39
Merkel is saying that govt should be the censor, not private companies. She is saying that Twitter actions banning trump are problematic, but this is in the context of German rules, where they have strong hate speech laws, so if run afoul, cops knock on your door.

http://www...-online-hate-speech/a-49080109

So free speech warriors should be careful with “merkel is voice of reason” shit, without context

habebe
Member Mon Jan 11 20:54:20
While here statement was rather vague, and I cant know what exacrly she meant by it.

I personally interpret he remark about it being "problematic" to mean whether you agree with it or not this could likley drive a wedge between americans even further.

There are plenty of people unhappy about this. If the stock market is any indication Twitter has lost value everyday since the ban afaik.

CrownRoyal
Member Tue Jan 12 23:19:52
http://pbs...XIAEZMNt?format=jpg&name=large

show deleted posts

Rugian Member	Sun Jan 10 12:53:47 Jergul 1. The Senate Majority Leader is not the President Pro Tempore. 2. I am okay with lengthy jail terms with those who showed up with clear intent to harm some people. Throw the book at ziptie guy, I'm all for it. You though are taking a few bad apples and falsely applying their motive to the entire crowd. Moreover, you have not done the same thing with BLM/antifa rioters in the past. Care to explain the discrepancy?
jergul large member	Sun Jan 10 13:00:32 Ruggy 1. Great, now you want me to read up on the byzantine nuances to who exactly holds that role when the same logic stands - Congress is extremely vulnerable when gathered and with insurectionists rampaging through the halls were it is gathered. The gameplan was the same for Trump as for the insurectionists. Block the reading somehow so that the outcome was determined by congressional state groups - thus allowing Trump to win. Would you have favoured such an outcome yourself (you would have been disgustingly smug. That is not hard to imagine). 2. No discrepancy. I assume the rule of law. The courts will sort out who is guilty of what.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 10 13:26:41 Jergul Understanding the roles of the officers of Congress isn't exactly rocket science. Is it really that hard for you to differentiate between a President and a party leader? You essentially just confused Erna Solberg with Tone Wilhelmsen Trøen. State blocs would have only been used to determine the president if no candidate had received at least 270 votes. That would have required Congress to first decide not to certify at least 36 votes. Feel free to explain to me how the rioters were realistically going to accomplish that. To be frank, you are putting quite a spin on things. The aim of the protest was to pressure members of Congress to vote a certain way. That's a common goal of protests and there's nothing wrong with that. Then the protest got out of hand and turned into a riot. If we take out the small number of people that showed up with zipties, then what is your argument that this is any different from a BLM protest that results in neighborhoods being burned down? 2. Holy dodge Batman.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jan 10 13:36:44 Trying to ban parler is typical of the far left censorship that we all have grown to expect.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 10 13:39:12 Sam "If you don't like Twitter, build your own site." Leftists are such fuxking sheep. Their beliefs constantly change depending on what they're arguing for/against.
Paramount Member	Sun Jan 10 13:39:31 But you can still stand on a street corner and parlay.
habebe Member	Sun Jan 10 13:41:16 damn this thread took off...
jergul large member	Sun Jan 10 13:43:44 Ruggy By physically removing 36 votes for Biden for example. What is not there cannot be certified. Or by creating a physical context where reading is impossible. Occupations with hostages can last for 100ds of days. By physically blocking key persons from doing their constitutional duty. You established that two people had to be removed for that to happen. Alternatively just hold enough senators to support a quorum call being unsuccessful. Or hold enough democratic senators to support a quorum overturning the election. You know as well as I do that Trump and his supporters were scattershooting the verification process in the hopes that something would give. How many people have been arrested so far? 28? Also, we are starting to see the contures of former regime loyalists in the security forces facilitating the takover of the capitol.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 10 13:44:57 Sammy Amazon, google and apple are far left?
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 10 13:55:02 Jergul How ridiculous can you get? If the rioters had managed to destroy 36 ballots, the count would have been adjourned until backup copies could be overnighted. No one would have seriously supported a count that excluded physically destroyed votes. President Pro Tempore can be bestowed on any senator the Senate chooses. So no, not just two. You seriously think the rioters could have taken 50 Senators hostage in order to deny a quorum? Are you for real? No senators supported overturning the election. A small number supported decertifying votes from states where the executive and judiciary had arguably taken illegal measures to influence the voting process. This talk of insurrection and holding Congress hostage is honestly starting to come off as some Tom Clancy fantasy land buttery. Please try to come back to reality my friend.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 10 13:55:37 Jergul All three companies lean heavily left on social issues, yes.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jan 10 14:02:15 "No senators supported overturning the election" really? does that include Tuberville? & if the objections had worked, Biden wouldn't get to 270 also, it's Trump who put out that Pence could stop it (& the cultists clearly believed it, hence the 'hang Mike Pence' chants & how they now seem to want him dead more than any Democrat)... so why wouldn't they believe their interruption could stop it? Trump claimed states were ready to change their electors, they just needed to prevent this certification
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 10 14:12:30 Tw Yes, including Tuberville. He only committed to challenging AZ. The objections wouldn't have worked. These were widely acknowledged to be protest votes. Trump clearly told the crowd that the purpose of marching to the Capitol was to clearly make their voices heard. You can certainly argue that he was playing with fire, but to imply that he intended to have the crowd hang Mike Pence or overturn the election is ridiculous.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jan 10 14:12:57 "Congress is adjourned. Send the elector choice back to the legislatures." ~ Kelli Ward, Arizona GOP chairwoman tweeted during insurrection, after congress had to flee (shows the mindset of cultists, from one who should know better) & Trump had posted a letter from PA legislature claiming they wanted to change electors (& claimed all swing states wanted to)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jan 10 14:15:49 he didn't intend for them to hang Mike Pence to overturn election, but he told them Mike COULD stop it, & they OBVIOUSLY believed it, & then were told Mike failed them if Pence can stop it all by preventing the vote, is it such a stretch to believe they thought they could prevent it by interrupting the vote? (Kelli Ward believed it, a GOP chairwoman) Trump was pretending like things were just about to swing his way w/ states wanting to change electors (as i keep noting :p)
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 10 14:16:15 I mean, let's just play this thing through. Say the rioters managed to hang Mike Pence and kill/capture over 100 Democratic representatives. The remaining rump of Congress, looking down the barrel of a gun, decides to decertify several states and re-elects Trump. In what universe would that result ever have been respected? That outcome quite simply defies all logic.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jan 10 14:22:36 you are ignoring the cultists believe every word Trump says Trump told them election was stolen, Trump said he had proof now that was 'certified' whatever that meant, Trump told them states were willing to change electors they believed they were being patriotic & saving America
jergul large member	Sun Jan 10 14:38:29 Ruggy There are not clear cut constitutional procedures for doing either. Tw underlines an important point. It does not matter what is realistic. It matters what the insurectionists thought they could achieve. Most there thought they could change the election outcome in one way or another. Anyone inside thinking they were doing something to change the outcome of the election are guilty of insurection.
Y2A Member	Sun Jan 10 15:02:04 "In what universe would that result ever have been respected? That outcome quite simply defies all logic." I don't think you understand how coups work. the legitimacy of the result over the general population is irrelevant.
Y2A Member	Sun Jan 10 15:02:04 "In what universe would that result ever have been respected? That outcome quite simply defies all logic." I don't think you understand how coups work. the legitimacy of the result over the general population is irrelevant.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jan 10 15:11:57 'Amazon, google and apple are far left?" They are certainly caving to left wing pressure.
Nekran Member	Sun Jan 10 15:45:40 We all know that they purely look at what they figure makes them most money. Amazon is not caving to left wing pressure to pay their workers a decent wage, for instance.
werewolf dictator Member	Sun Jan 10 18:14:31 "if you don't want to live in a one party system with mass censorship then all you have to do is start your own country" - russia-scapegoating nazis after using reichstag fire to silence opposition
habebe Member	Sun Jan 10 19:23:19 We seen the rise of Fox news, why? their was a desire for it.Now there is a desire for a media Platform(s) for conservatives, it seems the most logical next step is for that nees to be filled likley by many platforms until the dust settles and a few win out. Unfortunately, this will likley further divide the country
jergul large member	Sun Jan 10 20:04:01 That is why Pence has to be the next presidential candidate. The GOP has to peel the evangelicals off from the Trump base and return them to the fold of megachurches and religious broadcasting.
habebe Member	Sun Jan 10 20:45:37 I don't know that that is feasible.Among Republicans Trump is still as popular as ever.
Wrath of Orion Member	Sun Jan 10 20:57:04 "Now there is a desire for a media Platform(s) for conservatives" No, a desire for a platform willing to allow hate speech, threats, and the spreading of lies in an attempt to undermine free and fair elections. Rational conservatives are still welcome on Twitter, etc. Take note that "rational conservative" doesn't describe you and other Trump fluffer retards.
habebe Member	Sun Jan 10 22:15:32 Reasonable people, you know like heads of terrorist organizations, right?
jergul large member	Mon Jan 11 01:35:52 habebe Feasible if the Senate convicts.
Daemon Member	Mon Jan 11 09:27:25 I always knew that Rugian would fall in love with Merkel one day: http://abc...-eviction-problematic-75174090 BERLIN -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel considers U.S. President Donald Trump's eviction from Twitter by the company “problematic,” her spokesman said Monday. Twitter permanently suspended Trump from the microblogging platform on Friday, citing a “risk of further incitement of violence” in the wake of the storming of the U.S. Capitol by supporters of the outgoing president. Asked about Twitter's decision, Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said the operators of social media platforms “bear great responsibility for political communication not being poisoned by hatred, by lies and by incitement to violence.” He said it's right not to “stand back” when such content is posted, for example by flagging it. But Seibert also said that the freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of “elementary significance.” “This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,” he told reporters in Berlin. “Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the U.S. president have now been permanently blocked.” Facebook on Thursday suspended Trump’s account through Jan. 20, the day of President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration, and possibly indefinitely. Merkel herself does not have a Twitter account, although Seibert does and many German government ministers do.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jan 11 11:01:59 The Twitter CEO probably just wanted his Harrison Ford "How dare you, sir!" moment by censoring a sitting U.S. President. And like they've said for years, Twitter represents international values, not American values or even Western values (e.g., Jack Dorsey on JRE; March 5, 2019; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ ). So, if they find good market share in countries that censor free speech or have low bars for incitement, then that's enough for them. Just keep giving them money as they "fuck you" power-smile and undermine American democracy ;)
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 11 11:25:42 Jesus... you know the US leftists are off the fucking rails when merkel is the voice of reason.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Jan 11 12:57:39 Merkel is saying that govt should be the censor, not private companies. She is saying that Twitter actions banning trump are problematic, but this is in the context of German rules, where they have strong hate speech laws, so if run afoul, cops knock on your door. http://www...-online-hate-speech/a-49080109 So free speech warriors should be careful with “merkel is voice of reason” shit, without context
habebe Member	Mon Jan 11 20:54:20 While here statement was rather vague, and I cant know what exacrly she meant by it. I personally interpret he remark about it being "problematic" to mean whether you agree with it or not this could likley drive a wedge between americans even further. There are plenty of people unhappy about this. If the stock market is any indication Twitter has lost value everyday since the ban afaik.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 12 23:19:52 http://pbs...XIAEZMNt?format=jpg&name=large
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: