101–110 of 451 posts
Like Naval says, if you stop the king, then you are THE KING.
The king is stopped through a nationwide election, independently conducted by each state, contested in 64 accounts of court and dismissed by the supreme court. So that makes the democratic process - the KING. Right?
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? what is the rationale for squaring this circle
"Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works" — implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles."" -- Kevin Carson
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should the media, or anyone, be referring to them as "terrorists"? Generally a terrorist uses extreme violence to "terrorize", hence the name. A crowd of morons busting into the Capitol building, calmly wandering the hallways, and taking selfies, scarcely meets the definition, even if some of the politicians felt terror. If only the 9/11 terrorists, and all terrorists, were this tame.
"A crowd of morons busting into the Capitol building, calmly wandering the hallways, and taking selfies" Your information is out-of-date. The images that came out on Wednesday gave the false impression that it was all morons in horned helmets taking selfies. The video footage that has come out since then shows that there were also extremely violent participants. This video segment from MSNBC helped me understand quit…
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? what is the rationale for squaring this circle
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggest we make individuals or organizations that spread lies without evidence liable on a civil or criminal basis. The root reason for the violent riot at the Capitol last week was that many people have been lied to, and the lies are things that would incite people to fight. If you believed that America's democracy is no longer in place and has been replaced by a deep state dictatorship, you would probably fight a…
You sound almost like you want to give these people a pass. People get lied to all the time. The vast majority of them don't respond by forming an unruly mob of slathering idiots.
A lot of the mob on 1/6 probably really thought they were taking back the country from some corrupt Deep State and that Trump was this great guy who tried to fix the world, but has ben thwarted (although, saying all the non-Christian and non-Whites are not entitled to live here is not defensible). Like the lady who was shot, if you check her Twitter, she really bought into the whole QAnon brainwashing.
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? what is the rationale for squaring this circle
For one thing, your argument is reductionist. Just because Republicans complain about how CNN chooses to run its newsroom doesn’t mean they want a government takeover of CNN. You can say that something private actors are doing is bad or risky without there being an implication that the government should stop that bad behavior.
I mean you can flip this around just as easily? Where are all the Fairness Doctrine liberals?
For the other: quite a few Republicans, especially the folks Trump brought in, are economically quite liberal. See: https://ibb.co/mbTycKP Trump took changes to social security and Medicare off the table during his campaign. The laissez-faire economic libertarian wing long held the advantage within the coalition, but a bunch of them have become Democrats over the last couple of decades, especially with the rise of Trump.
This almost makes me suspect that the Facebook executives behind this decision are secretly die hard pro-Trumpers. Sure, it's definitely a bit spooky that people are going around saying the election was stolen when, as far as I can tell, there's no hard evidence of widespread cheating. (I'm open to changing my mind given sufficient evidence, I'm just saying that I haven't seen it yet.) But this is the equivalent of F…
Lmao, Russia election hoax for 4 years. Look through prominent Dem twitter accounts for stealing and hacked election. Example: https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/864522009048494080 Trump is even worse than this but both parties are garbage, left way more hypocritical though
I'm glad to see this misinformation downvoted, but in these troubling times it's important to restate the facts. There is ample and well documented evidence that there was strong Russian influence on our election in ad buys, concentrated highly to spread falsehoods and change the entire election's results. Anybody saying otherwise is trying to snow us. Calling this a "hoax" is telling us that there are five lights wh…
1. Russia bought ads and manipulated social media to influence the 2016 election.
2. Trump was an active participant and collaborator with Russia in doing 1.
I don't think anyone disputes 1. 2 was the basis of the failed impeachment and investigation and for which no convincing evidence can be produced. That is what people are generally referring to when they mention the "Russia hoax".
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? what is the rationale for squaring this circle
The opposite of a contradiction is another contradiction. Why are people that believe in regulation of the world's largest corporations suddenly laissez-faire libertarians? If you have opposed the Citizen's United ruling for a decade, don't suddenly act like you care about a corporation's civil liberties, including freedom of association and freedom of expression. The answer is obvious: both sides want power more tha…
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? what is the rationale for squaring this circle
I suspect other countries and their citizens wouldn’t want American corporate interference. Free market forces will certainly cut down these corporate influence to size.
That’s my prediction. We will have to wait and watch. Time will tell.