Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[NeedsAdjustments]

The lawsuit currently filed against Devin Nunes' Cow is, IMO, udderly without merit.  If Nunes' has a beef with his opposition, he is free to answer "his cow" and other critics in the same medium they employ.  This is probably a publicity stunt, and Nunes will milk the situation for all its worth.

It’s actually probably a strategic abuse of our courts to suppress free speech by burying a few select critics under legal fees, and thereby discourage others.

Who is paying Nunes’ legal fees?

[barton]

Yeah..... saw that.

Trump more concerned that the other party is getting free air time.  Doesn't wish it to be criminalized - but regulated.  Wants the election commission to get involved.

What does the election commission have to do with news reportage of individuals doing government business?  Examples?  Evidence of preferential treatment?  Will Trump apply his lofty nonpartisan principles to his own torrent of tweets and stumping wherever he goes?  Inquiring minds wish to know. 

[barton]

The lawsuit currently filed against Devin Nunes' Cow is, IMO, udderly without merit.  If Nunes' has a beef with his opposition, he is free to answer "his cow" and other critics in the same medium they employ.  This is probably a publicity stunt, and Nunes will milk the situation for all its worth.

It’s actually probably a strategic abuse of our courts to suppress free speech by burying a few select critics under legal fees, and thereby discourage others.

Who is paying Nunes’ legal fees?

Good question. 

[NeedsAdjustments]

Yeah..... saw that.

Trump more concerned that the other party is getting free air time.  Doesn't wish it to be criminalized - but regulated.  Wants the election commission to get involved.

How does one define "free air time" or otherwise political advertising being "given" to a political party?
An editorial in the New York Times?
A Washington Post reporting on the "President's" Russia ties that he calls "fake news?"
That absurd segment I saw on FOX "News" this morning accusing Elizabeth Warren of wanting to abolish the Constitution?

I didn't get an answer to the question I asked yesterday on this subject, and I don't expect to get one now.  But the slippery slope here is obvious. 

And even if one were to define a SNL parody of the President as political advertising, the Supreme Court (in a ruling that Conservatives applauded) has already spoken on the Government's ability to regulate it.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Yeah..... saw that.

Trump more concerned that the other party is getting free air time.  Doesn't wish it to be criminalized - but regulated.  Wants the election commission to get involved.

How does one define "free air time" or otherwise political advertising being "given" to a political party?
An editorial in the New York Times?
A Washington Post reporting on the "President's" Russia ties that he calls "fake news?"
That absurd segment I saw on FOX "News" this morning accusing Elizabeth Warren of wanting to abolish the Constitution?

I didn't get an answer to the question I asked yesterday on this subject, and I don't expect to get one now.  But the slippery slope here is obvious. 

And even if one were to define a SNL parody of the President as political advertising, the Supreme Court (in a ruling that Conservatives applauded) has already spoken on the Government's ability to regulate it.

To be clear, calling political satire "free air time" for a party is absurd on its face.  I play along here, for a second, in an attempt to demonstrate why that is.

I in no way expect kiidcarter8 to understand.

[facilitatorn]

Kid won’t want to understand. His ideal government runs on affirmative action for white crooks and empty smears for everyone else.

[oilcan]

From that article in Current Affairs that Josh linked last night....

Family. America. Mountains. Home. The Flag. Books. Truck. Cowboy. Faithful Dog. Remember that elections are decisions about how government power will be used in ways that will either help or hurt a lot of people. What do these photos tell us about any of that? It’s no different from a car commercial encouraging you to buy a Chevy because you’ve seen it with attractive people on a mountaintop.

Some people buy their cars from attractive people at the tops of buttes and mesas.  Some people look under the hood, test drive it in nasty weather, take sharp curves, look up mpg tests, etc.  The question for anyone here is:  which type are you? 

[NeedsAdjustments]

......or that something published or spoken publicly is FAKE NEWS

Glad we agree.

When did anyone say that anyone can't question the veracity of a news story??  Not the issue.  The issue has been the right to factcheck what any politician says, and if it proves to be a lie, call him on it.  Without fear of reprisals, slanderous attacks against the reporter, physical threats, or blocking access to a public press conference. 

And, this should be obvious, if you accuse a news outlet of fake news, you must provide EVIDENCE if you want to be taken seriously. 


Glad we agree.

This isn't about whether or not something is accurate.

The point made by anti-Trumpers is that even if the news IS fake, they have the FREE SPEECH and Trump has to deal with it.  They say Trump, by criticizing, is trying to shut down their rights to this speech.  Not so.  They can say it - and Trump can call it what he wants.

Same leeway must be given from both sides.  You dont lose the right to free speech when elected.

When the “President” incited or encouraged violence against media outlets, calls them “the enemy of the people” and threatens to use tax law to punish the owner of a newspaper he doesn’t like, those are threats against free speech.

You disagree?

The "President" on twitter today called the news media "the absolute Enemy of the People and our Country itself!"

Words like that coming from a President could not be considered attempted suppression of free speech?  Certainly, no way they could be used to justify violence against critical media outlets?  Nothing like that has happened yet, right?

[facilitatorn]

Why is Individual 1 calling Brad Parscale a total loser on Twitter? Isn’t that the guy he hopes will run his re-election campaign?

George Conway must be right about decompensating Donnie dotard.

[whiskeypriest]

......or that something published or spoken publicly is FAKE NEWS

Glad we agree.

When did anyone say that anyone can't question the veracity of a news story??  Not the issue.  The issue has been the right to factcheck what any politician says, and if it proves to be a lie, call him on it.  Without fear of reprisals, slanderous attacks against the reporter, physical threats, or blocking access to a public press conference. 

And, this should be obvious, if you accuse a news outlet of fake news, you must provide EVIDENCE if you want to be taken seriously. 


Glad we agree.

This isn't about whether or not something is accurate.

The point made by anti-Trumpers is that even if the news IS fake, they have the FREE SPEECH and Trump has to deal with it.  They say Trump, by criticizing, is trying to shut down their rights to this speech.  Not so.  They can say it - and Trump can call it what he wants.

Same leeway must be given from both sides.  You dont lose the right to free speech when elected.

When the “President” incited or encouraged violence against media outlets, calls them “the enemy of the people” and threatens to use tax law to punish the owner of a newspaper he doesn’t like, those are threats against free speech.

You disagree?

The "President" on twitter today called the news media "the absolute Enemy of the People and our Country itself!"

Words like that coming from a President could not be considered attempted suppression of free speech?  Certainly, no way they could be used to justify violence against critical media outlets?  Nothing like that has happened yet, right?

Well, if it was about a Conservative bambu would think so. But it is really not directed at the media, but his base. He is building distrust of legitimate reporting in order to convince people to ignore legitimate reporting and listen only to him. If he can get his base to listen only to him and reject factual evidence and factual reporting he can lie to his heart's [sic] content.

[kiidcarter8]

Yeah..... saw that.

Trump more concerned that the other party is getting free air time.

You mean like he does?  Yeah, that really should be "regulated."  Just report what the President and Republican leaders say.  The Democrats can take out ads in the papers.

Point is that it isn't about free speech.

[whiskeypriest]

Yeah..... saw that.

Trump more concerned that the other party is getting free air time.

You mean like he does?  Yeah, that really should be "regulated."  Just report what the President and Republican leaders say.  The Democrats can take out ads in the papers.

Point is that it isn't about free speech.

If you are talking about any government regulation of content, be it by the GCV or the FEC, yes it is.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Yeah..... saw that.

Trump more concerned that the other party is getting free air time.

You mean like he does?  Yeah, that really should be "regulated."  Just report what the President and Republican leaders say.  The Democrats can take out ads in the papers.

Point is that it isn't about free speech.

If that was your point, you didn't make it.

Try this format: Politicized content on television isn't protected by the First Amendment because ___________

[kiidcarter8]

Yeah..... saw that.

Trump more concerned that the other party is getting free air time.  Doesn't wish it to be criminalized - but regulated.  Wants the election commission to get involved.

How does one define "free air time" or otherwise political advertising being "given" to a political party?
An editorial in the New York Times?
A Washington Post reporting on the "President's" Russia ties that he calls "fake news?"
That absurd segment I saw on FOX "News" this morning accusing Elizabeth Warren of wanting to abolish the Constitution?

I didn't get an answer to the question I asked yesterday on this subject, and I don't expect to get one now.  But the slippery slope here is obvious. 

And even if one were to define a SNL parody of the President as political advertising, the Supreme Court (in a ruling that Conservatives applauded) has already spoken on the Government's ability to regulate it.

To be clear, calling political satire "free air time" for a party is absurd on its face.  I play along here, for a second, in an attempt to demonstrate why that is.

I in no way expect kiidcarter8 to understand.

Again.......

my comments were to show that Trump's position has little to do with suppressing free speech.  That is all.

I have no idea if he will get anywhere with it.

[NeedsAdjustments]

On the subject, Trump says just this afternoon about the Nunes lawsuit ie. social media posts that are critical of Conservatives:

Trump says there "is collusion" going on between social media and his opponents. "Something has to be going on," he says. "It's collusive and it's very fair to say that we have to do something about it."

Very hard to see how that admonition is kosher with the First Amendment.   kiidcarter8?