d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Why Do We Ignore Right Wing Terrorism Here?
Prev1151617181921Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 2808Replies: 205Track Topic
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
#161
Oct 27 2020 06:57pm
Quote
President Donald Trump repeatedly attacked Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, during his rally in Lansing, Michigan, on Tuesday, at one point taking credit for the FBI thwarting a plot to kidnap her and then immediately downplaying the actual threat that had been posed to Whitmer.

"Your governor, I don't thinks she likes me too much," Trump joked, prompting a loud reaction from the crowd.
"Hey, hey, hey hey," he told the audience, "I'm the one, it was our people that helped her out with her problem."
"I mean, we'll have to see if it's a problem. Right? People are entitled to say maybe it was a problem, maybe it wasn't," he added. "It was our people -- my people, our people that helped her out. And then she blamed me for it. She blamed me and it was our people that helped her. I don't get it. How did you put her there?"


More of the same.
Member
Posts: 53,139
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
#162
Oct 28 2020 09:53pm
https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/28/gov-kristi-noem-uninjured-after-man-brandished-weapons-trump-event/6055354002/

while every lefty posting in this thread is a violence-wanting, war-loving commie acolyte with faux outrage complexes, while you cry about successful fbi traps catching larpers just remember that one of your fellow harris/biden supporters attempted an act of terrorism

https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/28/gov-kristi-noem-uninjured-after-man-brandished-weapons-trump-event/6055354002/

dont forget it was james t hodgkinson (D) the lefty pale pasty privileged barnie and hillary/biden supporter who attempted to execute as many Republican members of Congress as possible as they prepared for a charity event in 2017

This post was edited by excellence on Oct 28 2020 09:54pm
Member
Posts: 13,870
Joined: Jun 27 2010
Gold: 98,921.50
#163
Oct 29 2020 10:48am
I'd call this far left terrorism thb, but at least this far left hippy got grilled for it



Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Sep 10 2007
Gold: 25.00
#164
Oct 29 2020 10:56am
Quote (Djunior @ Oct 29 2020 12:48pm)
I'd call this far left terrorism thb, but at least this far left hippy got grilled for it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhg4dtuhvNk


Whats your take on bakers being required to make cakes for gay weddings?
Member
Posts: 13,870
Joined: Jun 27 2010
Gold: 98,921.50
#165
Oct 29 2020 11:51am
Quote (Mangix @ Oct 29 2020 05:56pm)
Whats your take on bakers being required to make cakes for gay weddings?


Shitty analogy unless those bakers "censor" the ordinary weddings and gleefully promote the gay weddings.



Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Sep 10 2007
Gold: 25.00
#166
Oct 29 2020 01:32pm
Quote (Djunior @ Oct 29 2020 01:51pm)
Shitty analogy unless those bakers "censor" the ordinary weddings and gleefully promote the gay weddings.


To me its not really a shitty analogy, but I guess it would come down to how you approach the topic.
My angle on cake making would definitely be 'the bakers are choosing to not service specific individuals in specific ways, but will in other ways' under the argument of compelled speech. I think Cruz's angle was purely religious freedom based, but I might be wrong.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/compelled-speech-in-masterpiece-cakeshop-what-the-supreme-court-s-june-2018-decisions-tell-us-about-the-unresolved-questions

Much like twitter has the ability, and the justification to block users from its service under the right not to speak.
Due to 230(1), they are protected from the content users post, and as a result are encouraged to moderate it appropriately and tailor the experience for their users.

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230.

This topic and those like it has already been discussed to death in both courts and in the public as well.

Quote
https://www.lawfareblog.com/ted-cruz-vs-section-230-misrepresenting-communications-decency-act

First Amendment Protections

Furthermore, Facebook does not need to portray itself as a political actor to maintain its First Amendment rights. Corporations have free speech rights under Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission(1), whether or not they are political actors. These rights are important to Facebook because they protect (2) Facebook’s ability to moderate the content on its site. Free speech includes the right(3) not to speak(4), so the government cannot force Facebook to host content that the company does not want to host. Any such obligation would likely amount to a form of compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.

1. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/08-205/opinion.pdf
2. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-26/white-nationalist-s-lawsuit-is-wrong-twitter-can-ban-racists
3. https://casetext.com/case/wooley-v-maynard
4. https://casetext.com/case/west-virginia-state-board-of-education-v-barnette

In sum, the dichotomy Cruz presented to Zuckerberg was a false one. Facebook may still have difficult decisions ahead—but contrary to Cruz’s suggestions, it is at risk for losing neither its Section 230 immunity nor its First Amendment rights if it continues its current practices of content moderation.


This post was edited by Mangix on Oct 29 2020 01:34pm
Member
Posts: 13,870
Joined: Jun 27 2010
Gold: 98,921.50
#167
Oct 29 2020 02:46pm
Quote (Mangix @ Oct 29 2020 08:32pm)
To me its not really a shitty analogy, but I guess it would come down to how you approach the topic.
My angle on cake making would definitely be 'the bakers are choosing to not service specific individuals in specific ways, but will in other ways' under the argument of compelled speech. I think Cruz's angle was purely religious freedom based, but I might be wrong.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/compelled-speech-in-masterpiece-cakeshop-what-the-supreme-court-s-june-2018-decisions-tell-us-about-the-unresolved-questions

Much like twitter has the ability, and the justification to block users from its service under the right not to speak.
Due to 230(1), they are protected from the content users post, and as a result are encouraged to moderate it appropriately and tailor the experience for their users.

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230.

This topic and those like it has already been discussed to death in both courts and in the public as well.


Interfering in the elections is not allowed, to put it mildly. It leads for example to years of investigations in the case if Trump and the Russia-gate allegations.

What this far left twitter guy is doing is obvious. He's censoring stories he doesn't like because these may hurt the democrats while at the same time he allows stories on his platform that may hurt Trump.

I mean, it's blatantly obvious to everyone. Why do you think Dorsey got grilled in the video I posted earlier.

Member
Posts: 2,747
Joined: Jun 15 2019
Gold: 0.00
#168
Oct 29 2020 03:00pm
Quote (Mangix @ Oct 29 2020 03:32pm)
To me its not really a shitty analogy, but I guess it would come down to how you approach the topic.
My angle on cake making would definitely be 'the bakers are choosing to not service specific individuals in specific ways, but will in other ways' under the argument of compelled speech. I think Cruz's angle was purely religious freedom based, but I might be wrong.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/compelled-speech-in-masterpiece-cakeshop-what-the-supreme-court-s-june-2018-decisions-tell-us-about-the-unresolved-questions

Much like twitter has the ability, and the justification to block users from its service under the right not to speak.
Due to 230(1), they are protected from the content users post, and as a result are encouraged to moderate it appropriately and tailor the experience for their users.

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230.

This topic and those like it has already been discussed to death in both courts and in the public as well.


you forget that trumpers want to be able to persecute others for religious and political beliefs etc. but when its the other way around, holy crap do they cry hard.
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Sep 10 2007
Gold: 25.00
#169
Oct 29 2020 03:00pm
Quote (Djunior @ Oct 29 2020 04:46pm)
Interfering in the elections is not allowed, to put it mildly. It leads for example to years of investigations in the case if Trump and the Russia-gate allegations.


This isn't interfering with an election and even if you wanted to categorize it as such, Dorsey is 100% legally allowed to not stop certain speech on his platform.

Quote (Djunior @ Oct 29 2020 04:46pm)
What this far left twitter guy is doing is obvious. He's censoring stories he doesn't like because these may hurt the democrats while at the same time he allows stories on his platform that may hurt Trump.


Jack Dorsey is not far left, but he is left leaning that much is obvious and I believe he has admitted as much. If his intentions are to censor stories he doesn't like, he is legally allowed to do this. You are on his platform, with his rules.

Quote (Djunior @ Oct 29 2020 04:46pm)
I mean, it's blatantly obvious to everyone. Why do you think Dorsey got grilled in the video I posted earlier.


He got grilled because part of Ted Cruz's shtick is act holier than thou in an attempt to rile up right wing supporters and get them to go vote because "crazy marxist liberal communists are taking over big tech and silencing our voices!".

If you watch the video you will notice him get a proper answer 3 or more times that it was only for 24 hours and the NYPost is refusing to go through the proper process to get the post re-enabled. Ted Cruz realizing he lost the argument just starts repeating himself as if it was never responded to. Ted is super see through in this exchange.

We are free to not use his platform and communicate in other locations, like D2JSP.

This post was edited by Mangix on Oct 29 2020 03:01pm
Member
Posts: 13,870
Joined: Jun 27 2010
Gold: 98,921.50
#170
Oct 30 2020 10:46am
Quote (Mangix @ Oct 29 2020 10:00pm)
This isn't interfering with an election and even if you wanted to categorize it as such, Dorsey is 100% legally allowed to not stop certain speech on his platform.



Jack Dorsey is not far left, but he is left leaning that much is obvious and I believe he has admitted as much. If his intentions are to censor stories he doesn't like, he is legally allowed to do this. You are on his platform, with his rules.



He got grilled because part of Ted Cruz's shtick is act holier than thou in an attempt to rile up right wing supporters and get them to go vote because "crazy marxist liberal communists are taking over big tech and silencing our voices!".

If you watch the video you will notice him get a proper answer 3 or more times that it was only for 24 hours and the NYPost is refusing to go through the proper process to get the post re-enabled. Ted Cruz realizing he lost the argument just starts repeating himself as if it was never responded to. Ted is super see through in this exchange.

We are free to not use his platform and communicate in other locations, like D2JSP.


Don't worry, I'll never touch twitter. Secondly, if you argue that twitter or facebook are legally allowed to censor certain stories or allow others on their platforms whatever they say, why is it then that a bunch of Russians are NOT allowed to show their preference for a candidate, if that would be the case.

Hmm?

Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1151617181921Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact