Trump wins bigly, world to end tomorrow...

[insatiableholeinTO]

Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well in this forum

[ktopper]

5 hours ago, alphatop32 said:

What a great way to punish that bottom and find some temporary relief with your trauma. But I’m afraid there is no healing to this TDS, sir. You have to keep fucking many such bottoms every week to finish 4 years of Trump.. followed by 8 years of Vance, 8 years of Vivek, 8 years of Tulsi Gabbard ( our first female president) and 8 years of Candace Owens. So be ready for this trauma therapy for the next 36 years of hardcore topping and punishing these bottoms to let those frustrations out. 

Sigh! I am afraid you are right. And I shudder to think of the levels of fascistic depravity this country could descend into under the likes of Tulsi or Candace.

[BergenGuy]

On 11/7/2024 at 7:18 PM, TaKinGDeePanal said:

Once you say it, you mean it. Stand by for ALL government payments to be severely reduced - or abolished altogether.

I'm sure that there will be some attempts.  But, just because a senator, even a majority leader, wants something to happen doesn't mean that it will.  I'm not being naïve.  But, there are some things that congress people and senators who are facing re-election in two years will not want to face ... and one of them is a lot of very angry older people.  What they'll do is more insidious.  They just won't do anything.  That's politically much easier.  All they have to do is hope that Democrats are in power when it finally comes time to reduce Social Security/Medicare benefits due to insufficient funding.

[BergenGuy]

On 11/9/2024 at 2:44 AM, nanana said:

That is much more a woke leftist thing to do, but agreed I will not be happy if Trump does not follow through on his promise to ban censorship and government “misinformation” manipulation. This mostly happens to people on the right, but it’s also bad when it happens to people on the left. 

"Censorship" by whom?  Censorship by the government is already illegal except in certain, very limited, circumstances.

[nanana]

7 minutes ago, BergenGuy said:

"Censorship" by whom?  Censorship by the government is already illegal except in certain, very limited, circumstances.

Hi @BergenGuy, 

can you give some examples, and can you comment on whether the government practices censorship whether or not it’s illegal?

thanks!

[BergenGuy]

28 minutes ago, nanana said:

can you give some examples, and can you comment on whether the government practices censorship whether or not it’s illegal?

No, I can't.  That's why I was asking what "censorship" that Trump is supposed to ban.

[Infected]

I woke up today expecting the world to have stopped and I might be the only person alive (day 5).  Seems the world didn’t stop (or end) as some predicted. Left wondering when this world calamity is scheduled to occur; any ideas?

[nanana]

25 minutes ago, BergenGuy said:

No, I can't.  That's why I was asking what "censorship" that Trump is supposed to ban.

There’s a lot of evidence that the Biden administration pressured social media to deplatform and repress people whose views contrasted with their own, as extensively reported by Matt Taibi among others. Multiple administrations attempted to prosecute Julian Assange for reporting on US war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere. Do these not meet your definition of censorship? Perhaps they don’t fit a model of having to be approved by the government before being published? 

[BergenGuy]

17 minutes ago, nanana said:

There’s a lot of evidence that the Biden administration pressured social media to deplatform and repress people whose views contrasted with their own, as extensively reported by Matt Taibi among others.

Were those views merely contrasting opinions or were they presenting objectively false information?  Although, either way, I don't agree with pressuring a media outlet over anything.  I'm a First Amendment fanatic.  However, there is nothing wrong with  the government talking with media outlets about how they can help present factual information during, say, a health crisis like COVID.  At least, that didn't use to be controversial,  These days, there are probably people who object to anti-smoking public service announcements.

But, all that has been reported and the Biden administration has ended those conversations.  So, again, I'm wondering what "censorship" is Trump ending?  Or, is that "censorship" yet another canard like his "war on Christmas"?

[nanana]

For me there is a pretty clear distinction between presenting a government view of something versus the government trying to get another point of view shut down and disappeared. In the first scenario people get to compare the sense of both statements. In the other scenario there’s only one statement to consider. There’s extensive evidence the Biden administration pressured social media to disappear information. In my view, as much as “objective fact” might exist, I don’t see any authority with the purity of motive to be entrusted to adjudicate it, certainly not on my behalf.  I have a lot less trust than you do that organizations actually stop doing things, I think they usually figure out how to morph them. I think we may agree that there is a tendency to focus on past injustices while ignoring current, as-yet-unnoticed injustices. I think we may agree that it’s  always a good time to hold politicians accountable for good governance. Trump specifically has said he would dismantle the government’s ability to manipulate social media into banning people and suppressing their speech. I don’t think it would preclude the government from promoting anti-smoking messages. But what do I know? I am going to continue being skeptical of what any politician says and believe actions and efforts to be transparent. 

[insatiableholeinTO]

3 hours ago, BergenGuy said:

"Censorship" by whom?  Censorship by the government is already illegal except in certain, very limited, circumstances.

Didn't Mark Zuckerberg testify before Congress on how the Biden administration ordered the censorship of certain physicians during the COVID pandemic? Wasn't it in the twitter files?

 

P.S.  Whoever is moderating this I'm asking a question not insinuating that's what happened. I mean I could use another example of censorship, but I'll save that for another time

[ktopper]

2 hours ago, Infected said:

I woke up today expecting the world to have stopped and I might be the only person alive (day 5).  Seems the world didn’t stop (or end) as some predicted. Left wondering when this world calamity is scheduled to occur; any ideas?

It could be any day now, based on some of the "professional" political commentators in the legacy media such as those nice ladies on "The View" and several others. Now I must confess that I don't watch them directly since I don't own a television, having banned said devices from my life decades ago. But I do get snippets of their sagacious oratory on YouTube and other such outlets. I have also received information from an extremely reliable anonymous source with impeccable credentials that the MAGAs are upgrading Project 2025. They are almost ready with Project 2025 v2.0 and by all accounts it is a real doozy, gives me the fantods just thinking about it, it does.
😉

[SFCumdog]

5 hours ago, nanana said:

Hi @BergenGuy, 

can you give some examples, and can you comment on whether the government practices censorship whether or not it’s illegal?

thanks!

The Comstock Act of 1873. Still on the books. The Comstock Act criminalizes the mailing of materials that are "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" or "intended for producing abortion". This includes pornography, contraceptives, sex toys, and written material about these items. While It may not directly censor the actual speech, It censors the flow of that speech which is just as insidious.

[BootmanLA]

On 11/9/2024 at 1:35 AM, nanana said:

This smacks of a blind-spot that will keep the leftists out of power for quite a while (thankfully). The Democrats lost because they keep deciding to transfer wealth out of the pockets of those who paid into the system and into the pockets of those who didn’t. The working class sees this clearly and voted with its feet, which tiptoed away from name callers and toward people who realize you have to do something to get something. Charity is great but theft is not so exciting. 

Away from name-callers? Did you actually hear anything that Trump said in the last ten years?

[NEDenver]

4 hours ago, nanana said:

For me there is a pretty clear distinction between presenting a government view of something versus the government trying to get another point of view shut down and disappeared. In the first scenario people get to compare the sense of both statements. In the other scenario there’s only one statement to consider. There’s extensive evidence the Biden administration pressured social media to disappear information. In my view, as much as “objective fact” might exist, I don’t see any authority with the purity of motive to be entrusted to adjudicate it, certainly not on my behalf.  I have a lot less trust than you do that organizations actually stop doing things, I think they usually figure out how to morph them. I think we may agree that there is a tendency to focus on past injustices while ignoring current, as-yet-unnoticed injustices. I think we may agree that it’s  always a good time to hold politicians accountable for good governance. Trump specifically has said he would dismantle the government’s ability to manipulate social media into banning people and suppressing their speech. I don’t think it would preclude the government from promoting anti-smoking messages. But what do I know? I am going to continue being skeptical of what any politician says and believe actions and efforts to be transparent. 

Nanana is upset at attempts to remove misinformation and disinformation because without those, there’s no way for a right winger to maintain a semi-coherent world view.