Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #261

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American companies aren’t supportive of this. Also, the USA doesn’t give the president unchecked power, which is why this injunction simply shuts the ban down until the government can prove in court that it is legal. An authoritarian regime would have no concept of independent judicial review.

The American democracy didn't respond to the authoritarian plans other than hoping that the judicial system will do its work. This is too little too late, especially when republicans are in a frenzy run to shape judicial benches all over the country. The democratic answer, as I mentioned above, would be for Congress to introduce proper legislation to answer to this new situation where a foreign company operates a soc…

Post by ryneandal » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

controversy wrote: post #248

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My parents were in high school while segregation still existed. There's no question they got opportunities many black americans the same age did not, which absolutely had a direct and significant impact on my life. Redlining remained legal into the 70s, and was continued with the thinnest of fig leafs concealing it into the 90s. Covert discrimination in loan and rental applications continues to this day. Many studies…

You called me a bigot. I can’t respond. I’m stuck. Nowhere to go. Native Americans can invest in themselves. When they take the patrimony of the Federal government, they don’t. https://youtu.be/pQ4lnDy2xnQ The same is true of the blacks. Before LBJ decimated them, they were on their way to be independent. They were starting to make money equal to whites. They were establishing their own cities with arts like Harlem.…

Post by azernik » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #73

mumblemumble wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a sovereign nation, as an abstract entity, can do, is distinct from what its executive leader can do. The only time they happen to coincide is, by definition, in the case of autocracy.

But in this case, the executive has the authority to ban things based on national security. And if that power isn't properly applied, the courts will intervene. What "autocracy" are you referring to?

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 10:40 PM UTC

aphextron wrote: post #42

From the beginning of this I never understood how there could be any legal basis whatsoever for the ban. Apparently that's because there was none.

Post by controversy » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 10:46 PM UTC

augustt wrote: post #198

controversy wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please. At this point, both blacks and Indians are able to take various Federal and State monies to be the best they can be. The Indians have relative sovereignty. They could take their federal and casino monies and plow them into an R&D bonanza. Blacks in the US have a golden ticket to pretty much any institution they wish to attend. Both have had trillions of US dollars plowed into their communities over the year v…

Yeah honestly what more could these people want - it's not like people are calling them Indians to this day or suggesting they can't think freely enough to "escape" the Democratic "plantation". Read some books not written by Candace Owens you tool.