541–550 of 602 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per Thomas Jefferson the "unalienable rights" guaranteed by the US Constitution are God-given, and cannot be suspended or set aside by other humans.
But they can be added to? Either it's a human document you can amend or it's an immutable religious text.
Meanwhile the major Democrat leaning/voting news outlets peddled russian collusion conspiracy nonsense for years and then stoked the flames of racial and anti-police violence last year. And I see we have people here clinging to misinformation and melodramatic interpretations by the major liberal news outlets on events of january 6th, and these people don't know that they are living in unreality themselves and yet wan…
You may find the Mueller report enlightening, then. [1] The claims are hardly nonsense: it’s a bipartisan fact that Russians made a big effort to influence at least the 2016 election, and succeeded. [2] Rather than taking a hard stance against Russia because of this, Trump officials have been convicted related to their lies about the situation. [3] Alleging or assuming that trump knew about this and/or encouraged it…
The Russian influence claims are way over exaggerated. The best evidence they found are in the order of 10k$, like ads for Facebook pages with barely any followers. There was no bombshell of anything that could have any kind of significant effects. For all we know those were armchair trolls on the Internet.
> You may find the Mueller report enlightening, then.
Have you actually read it or cherry picked the quote you like? Not only was it started on lies (one lawyer was convicted for altering documents) and concluded there was not enough to charge for illicit links between the Trump Campaign and any other Republicans, most of it is simply finding "links", like meeting for a project, with nothing about proving the content or the intent for collusion.
> Rather than taking a hard stance against Russia because of this, Trump officials have been convicted related to their lies about the situation.
Not exactly, they've all been convicted on technicalities and what was clear entrapment. The Michael Flynn is quite telling of that with how he was lured into a FBI interview at work where it was normal to talk to FBI agents, how with no representations or document he was "caught" not being factual about an event that happened years ago and how the judge sought an ex parte so he could refuse the prosecution's demand to dismiss the case.
> Alleging or assuming that trump knew about this and/or encouraged it is not a huge stretch given his history.
Confirmation bias. Not really an argument.
> https://www.c-span.org/video/?413263-1/donald-trump-urges-ru...
Why do you only take seriously the part that fits your conclusion but refuse to ignore the part where he had nothing to do with Putin? Don't expect to be taken seriously when your "damning proof" is a quote taken out of context and that the context contradicts you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You broke the site guidelines with that title, which was neither accurate nor neutral (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26240472 ). Using titles to editorialize isn't "haha", it's against the rules and will cause you to lose submission privileges on HN. That goes double for divisive, inflammatory topics like this one. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking t…
dang: I'm not particularly sure in what way this is a new phenomenon. It's basically just US politics as normal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You broke the site guidelines with that title, which was neither accurate nor neutral (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26240472 ). Using titles to editorialize isn't "haha", it's against the rules and will cause you to lose submission privileges on HN. That goes double for divisive, inflammatory topics like this one. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking t…
NYT used the title "House Democrats Press Cable Providers on Election Fraud Claims", I don't think it is much different and I think my edit is based on the actual content in the letters. But thank you for unflag the post.
I don't think the headline of some third-party piece is relevant here.
It's a letter to AT&T that encourages them to do something about Fox and OANN. I'd say sure, do something about them, but let's also look inward. There was a lot of misinformation abound after the Capitol Riots that was simply there to stir up Democrats and a lot of this information was very racially angled. Though Democrats play up the death of the Capital police officer now, their constituents were absolutely promo…
* The QAnnon conspiracy is clearly a very sophisticated psy-ops; Who was behind it? What Peolosi, the FBI and DC security knew about it and the events who were organized on Facebook?
* Who would knowingly benefit from invading the Capitol?
* Who actually benefited from invading the Capitol and for who was it detrimental?
* Why the security was lowered for the Capitol during the Inauguration?
* Why are there multiple video evidence of police officers letting people in?
* If it was crystal clear that Trump incited the so called "riots" then why nobody reported about incitement before they happened?
* Why the NYT, who falsely reported that the dead officer was killed with a fire extinguisher at the hands of a rioter, only made the retraction right after the impeachment conviction vote when they had the means and knowledge to do so before?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should probably thank the _humans_ that wrote it.
Per Thomas Jefferson the "unalienable rights" guaranteed by the US Constitution are God-given, and cannot be suspended or set aside by other humans.
Is anyone else confused at how this is legal? I have no expertise in law, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court has agreed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama that. > Racial discrimination in state-operated schools is barred by the Constitution and "[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally fo…
>Is anyone else confused at how this is legal? I They can't legally force the companies to comply and they know that but it doesn't matter. This is a threat: "If you don't do what we tell you to do, we'll make your life miserable". If the companies don't willingly comply, then they can launch a FUD PR campaign through activist non-profits orgs and claim that these companies are hosting hate speech. Too cynical?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The First Amendment forbids any such legislation.
It absolutely does not do any such thing. Speech can be well-regulated, just like other constitutional rights. Your right to speak does not mandate a megaphone. What I described was the law from the 1930s until the 1980s. Our predecessors saw what happened in fascist and communist states and wisely took measures to avoid that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who determines what is true and what's a lie? Why do you trust them to make the right call?
Wait no. That’s not how this works. There’s no determination of fact. It doesn’t matter whether what you said is true or false — this isn’t a rule against being wrong. It’s a rule against someone speaking something they know and believe a priori to be false with the intent to mislead people. Like it’s literally the same ideas as fraud but applied to misinformation. If you believe that climate change is a hoax then yo…
If one doesn’t believe in the Holocaust, yet publishes erudite webpages with the intent to mislead others (at least from his POV) into thinking it really happened, would that be a problem?
If yes, you are consistent, albeit a bit crazy.
If no, your rule reduces, once again, to a focus on the falsity of the communication as opposed to the writers intent.