The Facebook Files

Why bother with all of the Republicans are bad threads?

Does this ring a bell?
http://wordforge.net/index.php?thre...unter-biden-laptop-story.122949/#post-3432229

You did not answer the question about pushing back on disinformation about vaccines, or disinformation in general. Even if we accept that the they were actively trying to suppress the truth about vaccines, not disinformation, the question remains if you accept that the government should be able to push back on disinformation or if they should just remain neutral to it. Is any government criticism of someone else's speech censorship in your mind.

You did not answer what evidence there is of actual threats from government and where it is. What we're looking for: links to a) actual Biden administration officials saying to Facebook (or Twitter or any other social media) if you do not get rid of the speech we like, we will fine you, remove or modify laws protecting you, or do anything beyond using our megaphone to criticize your inaction b) actual Facebook (or Twitter or any other social media officials) explicitly expressing concerns about Biden administration officials making such threats as described in a).

How many times do you have to be told "the government is allowed to take a critical position on things without violating the first amendment, as long as they don't actually force censorship to take place" before it sinks in?

The Cato Institute has a lengthy article about "jawboning" here:
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/jawboning-against-speech

It goes on to talk about the Biden administration and vaccines.

So this admits that the sorts of statements that Jen Psaki and Murthy made are in and of themselves are "inoffensive." But it says that a press person's respond to a question about getting rid of Section 230 made it "jawboning." Reasonable people can disagree about that. Especially in light of AFAIK, neither the administration nor Democrats in general have made any attempts to actually get rid of Section 230. (And actually, the question was about amending 230, not getting rid of it.) You can see the clip here:
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/w...e-americans-to-get-vaccinated-wh-117059141549

The Cato Institute post goes on:

So Cato agrees that the claims the government was attacking are "almost certainly false." My take is that when it comes to public health issues, the government should have an even greater ability to stifle demonstrably false speech than in other areas.

The government was actively pushing disinformation themselves, they have no business lecturing others about disinformation.

@Ancalagon correctly pointed out the tactic they use, it's called jawboning. They don't have to issue threats, they use intimidation to achieve their goals.

Because I like to be able to look back at where I stood on different positions as the years pass, and posting it publicly is a handy way to make sure that I (or others wanting to keep me honest) can do this. Not to mention, I don't have to worry about somebody questioning me about the subject.

You mean where I said, "Why does anyone believe Zuckerberg about anything that he says?" Notice the key word in there "anything." That doesn't mean that I think that he's necessarily lying on JRE (though he might well have been), I'm saying that he's so unreliable as a person, that one shouldn't accept anything he says as being true, regardless of where he is, or what he's saying. Yes, he might be telling the truth now, but how can you be certain with all the lies and distortions he's done over the years? I'm sure that if one wanted to, one could drill down in all the stuff and find out if he's telling the truth or not, but why bother? It's like disproving the claims of the former Iraqi Minister of Information. It's not going to stop him from spewing shit.

Actually EC splits go as far back as John Quincy Adams and no we shouldn't get rid of it.

So, the fact that W was elected because of the EC and was able to lie us into a war isn't a good enough reason to get rid of it. The fact that Trump was elected because of the EC and bumbled his way through a pandemic, and a number of other situations, isn't a good enough reason to get rid of it. So, I have to ask you, "What would be a good enough reason to get rid of it?"

The majority of the populations of major cities like LA., NY. and Chicago flipping to libertarian consistently for two consecutive election cycles or a Reaganesqe landslide victory of a Libertarian candidate.

So, in short, you're willing to sacrifice the lives of untold Americans on the slimmest of possibilities that at some distant point in the future you may get what you want. The odds of a majority of the places you list flipping to Libertarian in anything less than 100 years are about the same as my being able to bang Marilyn Monroe without a time machine.

Here's a thing that you don't get: You ditch the EC and it helps break up the hold the two major political parties have on the system. After all, what's one of the arguments people make about why they don't vote third party? Because things like the EC mean that the two largest political parties will always have a lock on the system. It doesn't matter if they're right, it doesn't matter if they're being honest, you get rid of the EC, and they can't use that excuse anymore.

It's like your objection to the US joining the ICC. We join the ICC and it's entirely possible someone will think twice before they decide to pull a "W" and lie to get us into an international war. Even if they still do, there's a better chance than there is now that they'll actually face justice for their crimes. A good argument to be made that Obama should be brought before the ICC over his use of drones, but since we're not a member, that'll never happen. But nope, your objections to the idea are more important to you than seeing Obama on trial for war crimes.

The fuck does that have to do with anything?

you just succeeded in proving me correct, so, six of one...

:stealyourfacepalm:

The only time you hear Democrats complain about the Electoral College is when they lose. That tells me all I need to know. They want full permanent control over the country and they know that the EC stands in their way.

It has to do with the fact that @Tuckerfan was wrong.

Whatever you say, buddy.

Yes, heaven forfend that we let the majority rule this country. But, what you're saying is that people who can't win in the marketplace of ideas have to resort other means to obtain power. Doesn't that make you question why your ideas aren't more popular? If they're better, than what's stopping you from convincing people? After all, I think we can both agree that the EC hasn't kept shitheads out of office. If that's its objective, then it needs improvement. Do you have any suggestions?

Right, but the majority of Presidents who've won solely on the EC and not the popular vote were elected when?

Then you haven't been listening. All the same basic criticisms of the EC have been made by Democrats during the Obama presidency and since the Biden presidency. In fact, new ones have arisen because despite Biden's win in both the popular vote and the EC (you do accept that he won both, right?) , Trump's gambit to retain power had to do with fucking around with the Electoral College.

Among his schemes, he wanted to propose alternate slates of electors in states he lost so that Pence could be like "Who can say who the real slates are? Let's just have the legislatures from those states tell us" or "I consider the Trump slates to be the true electors and thus Trump wins!"

Thankfully, Pence didn't sign on to the scheme.

Even if one were to disregard all the various other problems with the Electoral College -- how it gives small states a disproportionate role in choosing a president, how it potentially creates a situation where the person that most voters want is not who is elected, how it distorts how campaigns are run, how it means that red voters in blue states don't get their voices heard and vice versa -- the notion that Trump tried this and nearly got away with it AND is still a contender for the office again should scare anyone sensible from thinking that the EC is not a flawed system.

The Libertarian party has had a hard time putting forth a decent candidate. The Republican party has a messaging problem and it's hard to compete with "free money for everyone!" Let's face it, the presidential race has become a popularity contest for most. I do think my ideas are popular, but the people who line up with my ideas are often drummed out of their respective parties or are called Russian assets without providing a lick of evidence. People are stupid so the buy into to all of this nonsense. My ideas would be to get money out of politics, that would go a long way in fixing things. Prohibiting Congresscriters and their intimidate family member from insider trading or sitting on corporate boards for X amount of time would be a good start.

If it's a sensible party, then it shouldn't have trouble finding sensible candidates. In fact, it should want to push candidates with bad ideas out of the party as quickly as possible.

Well the two parties have made efforts to make it harder for third party candidates to get a spot on the debate stage and lately there hasn’t been much debate anyway.

Course, all the right has anymore is "you'll never be one of us; our kids will never go to school together, but here's black and LGBT people to spit on. Just never come after our gated communities, and yachts. Enjoy".

That's why things, like ranked choice voting, are so important. They help level the playing field. Depending upon the office and depending upon the candidate, if RCV were a thing here, I could absolutely see me casting votes for Libertarians. Especially since they'd likely be far less corrupt than the Republicans in many seats. And, no, that's not an exaggeration. Spend about five minutes nosing around in TN politics and you quickly realize it's corrupt as fuck.

Just a small point, since you seem to have exposed your fetish. I would think you could pretty easily bang her remains without a rtime machine much easier than banging her if you had a time machine. Just a thought since you seem to want to.

I have no doubt TN politics is corrupt. I grew up in SC. I was still living there when Lysnsey Graham was first coming up. I’ve been hating that guy for a long time.

Lmao

While I do have problems with corporations colluding with the government (moreso because of the power corporations tend to wield over the government), you undercut your arguments by spouting batshit crazy stuff like this. Anyone with more than two brain cells understands the point of the COVID vaccine and mask mandate.

I'm sure it will sink in for FF as soon as Trump is reelected.

Why do you think Democrats want to get rid of the electoral college and why do you think getting rid of it would ensure permanent control over the country?

Repugs could win fair elections just fine if they supported legislation that was popular, and abandoned racism.
They're THAT fucking committed to an unpopular and racist agenda.


And if FF wants to say "so basically be RINOs! " then he's fucking telling on himself.