381–390 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy Did Trump really call for violence? Are those tweets still accessible somewhere? (Serious question, I did not follow his account.)
No, all he said was: "Big Protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Protest is protected by the first amendment.
> involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government. From my understanding the video that got banned asked everyone to go home peacefully but then continued to claim election fraud?
This seems pretty obvious?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't quite disagree with this, but I'm willing to defend those who do because a slightly different weighting in my priorities would make my disagree. Inciting violence should be punished by the law , not by Facebook. For regular people it makes sense to outsource some of this to Facebook, to minimize the load on the legal system. POTUS however is one very high profile person. His statements are not being missed by…
Trump did not incite violence. If anything, the media this summer was much more involved in inciting and fueling the BLM riots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Fuck zuck, finally deleted my Facebook account because of this.
You deleted your Facebook account, because they banned someone for inciting treason and sedition?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like Trump is just a regular president of a country. It's not surprising at all given his behavior. Being president doesn't excuse it.
What policies he pushed you are not happy with? Less taxes, no new wars, and leaving each state making their own decisions for covid-19 seems pretty center right to me.
Paid for by running up record deficits - which is the opposite of what the right claimed to stand for, and which Trump directly ran on. And those taxes expire for the people, showing who Trump really worked for in this case.
>no new wars,
Yet destabilizing many areas of the world, leaving it in the opinion of some countries in a much less peaceful place. Here's Germany putting Trump as "Greatest Threat to World Peace " [1]. He's destabilized NATO, he's attacked the US and other intelligence forces to where the US is no longer trusted, likely causing other agencies to share less intel with us. Here's how a lot of the first world thinks of Trump [2].
>leaving each state making their own decisions for covid-19
And his lack of leadership is a central reason the US has 350K_ dead, while other first world countries only have a fraction of the death and economic downturn Trump caused.
Trump also fought states having the right to their own election rules, didn't want states to deal with immigration on their own terms, didn't want states to deal with protests on their own terms, has repeatedly claimed he has absolute authority over state decisions (including COVID related ones where he claimed he could dictate economic policy, which he didn't have), and on and on....
Trump uses "states rights" to score political points only - pretend to respect them when he wants, and attack them when he wants.
When your evaulation uses a fallacy (cherry-picking) you end up ignoring the majority of the eivdence, your assessment ends up incorrect.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-angela-merkel-germans-...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-plumm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if the fairness doctrine hadn't been eliminated administratively, it's very plausible it'd have been overturned by SCOTUS anyway. Not that'd I agree with that, but given the way the court has gone on corporate "free speech"...
The only reason the fairness doctrine could even plausibly exist constitutionally was because radio and tv were broadcast media using a public good (spectrum). Cable TV, newspapers were not affected and the internet likely wouldn’t have been affected either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure it's a symptom of something but my point was Fox News (which was established in 1996 according to Wikipedia) could never have been born prior to 1987. What happened yesterday in Washington, DC may prove a counterpoint to 1st amendment claims that all speech should be allowed, regardless of consequences. Edit: I see I was wrong about Fox as it is a cable network and not broadcast over public airwaves. I still…
The fairness doctrine never applied to cable channels. The only reason it was plausibly Constitutional was the use of the airways, which are considered a public resource. Private cables strung by private companies into private homes were never regulated by the fairness doctrine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You deleted your Facebook account, because they banned someone for inciting treason and sedition?
This spin leaves me incredulous. How does Trump inviting a protest equate to "inciting treason and sedition"? Y'all are bonkers.
Never thought I'd have anything nice to say about Pence but pushing back was the right thing to do here. H/T to him
To say nothing to his tacit approval of a mob storming the capitol on EC certification day...