Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[Anathema-]

8 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I can't see any of that, which would need to be race based in order for it to be actual justice (for 250 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, and 50 years of sheer indifference from the government) to pass any sort of constitutional muster given that the current court overturned the goddamn voting rights act cause racism is dead or some shit like that

 

The question isn't what their plans are, it's a question of their moral stances and what injustices they see. For a candidate to try and be the "radical solutions" candidate it'd be particularly stark if they portrayed reparations as too radical while their opponents did not.

 

Reparations are just and I would even argue needed, regardless of feasibility. Regardless of the form they eventually would take. Americans have had their generational wealth stolen from them. 

[Anathema-]

 

when david brooks is to ur left 

[TheGreatGamble]

It’s too bad that everyone wants to use Gabbards youthful ignorant teen years against her, because she’s a fantastic candidate. 

 

The need from the far left to have a super progressive candidate is nauseating to centrists like myself. 

 

The left wants ants to fuck with the first and second amendment, the right wants to destroy BLM and restrict voting rights. Both sides disgust me. At least Gabbard falls in line with the silent majority of centrist democrats who think the Trump GOP is disgusting, but want nothing to do with far left socialist policies (like wealth taxes), and restriction of free speech on campus and social media (platforms which have HUGE effects on our democratic republic, and are steering the conversation the way they want, while pushing out opinions they don’t agree with).

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Anathema- said:

Regardless of the form they eventually would take. Americans have had their generational wealth stolen from them. 

Based on tax policies you support, this is kind of an amusing point to me

[SaysWho?]

33 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

It’s too bad that everyone wants to use Gabbards youthful ignorant teen years against her, because she’s a fantastic candidate. 

 

The need from the far left to have a super progressive candidate is nauseating to centrists like myself. 

 

The left wants ants to fuck with the first and second amendment, the right wants to destroy BLM and restrict voting rights. Both sides disgust me. At least Gabbard falls in line with the silent majority of centrist democrats who think the Trump GOP is disgusting, but want nothing to do with far left socialist policies (like wealth taxes), and restriction of free speech on campus and social media (platforms which have HUGE effects on our democratic republic, and are steering the conversation the way they want, while pushing out opinions they don’t agree with).

 

Gabbard endorsed Bernie and put his name in at the convention. She wanted to be seen as a progressive, not centrist.

 

The wealth tax is popular. A platform banning you doesn't infringe on free speech. 

[PaladinSolo]

44 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

It’s too bad that everyone wants to use Gabbards youthful ignorant teen years against her, because she’s a fantastic candidate. 

 

The need from the far left to have a super progressive candidate is nauseating to centrists like myself. 

 

The left wants ants to fuck with the first and second amendment, the right wants to destroy BLM and restrict voting rights. Both sides disgust me. At least Gabbard falls in line with the silent majority of centrist democrats who think the Trump GOP is disgusting, but want nothing to do with far left socialist policies (like wealth taxes), and restriction of free speech on campus and social media (platforms which have HUGE effects on our democratic republic, and are steering the conversation the way they want, while pushing out opinions they don’t agree with).

*Narrator* - She was in her 20s. 

 

Not saying she can't change but she never had a chance in hell of winning the nomination.

[TheGreatGamble]

9 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

*Narrator* - She was in her 20s. 

 

Not saying she can't change but she never had a chance in hell of winning the nomination.

she was still young without fully formed opinions..

 

And yes, she has no chance of winning, because the left is eating itself, and having a less than perfect past is a disqualifier, unless you come to heel for idealogues and dreamers. Id much prefer a candidate who has their feet firmly planted in reality. The AOC's are a tiny, vocal minority. What she wants isn't what most democrats want. 

 

Picking a far left idealogue is a good way to push away democratic voters who feel the party is getting away from them. Its a good way to elect Trump again, but not a good way to win.

 

We desperately need a legitimate third party. This left/right bullshit is insane. 

[TheGreatGamble]

21 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Gabbard endorsed Bernie and put his name in at the convention. She wanted to be seen as a progressive, not centrist.

 

The wealth tax is popular. A platform banning you doesn't infringe on free speech. 

No, it doesn't infringe on free speech, but if a platform is turned into a political powerhouse like twitter is, then free speech should be ensured for all americans. Its vital to modern politics, the goddamn president uses it to affect policy, fire people, and make political statements. Twitter has too much effect on elections to allow them to ban speech the left doesn't like. The bias is too ridiculous. You can get banned for dead naming, but not for calling for the death and/or doxxing of a kid who stood in a line with a MAGA hat smiling. 

[SaysWho?]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

No, it doesn't infringe on free speech, but if a platform is turned into a political powerhouse like twitter is, then free speech should be ensured for all americans. Its vital to modern politics, the goddamn president uses it to affect policy, fire people, and make political statements. Twitter has too much effect on elections to allow them to ban speech the left doesn't like. The bias is too ridiculous. You can get banned for dead naming, but not for calling for the death and/or doxxing of a kid who stood in a line with a MAGA hat smiling. 

 

If it doesn't infringe on free speech, then free speech in ensured. No platform is obligated to make sure white supremacists can post freely. No platform is obligated to allow you to expand your reach if you think the Sandy Hook kids were actors and didn't really die.

 

It's extreme to think otherwise. Thinking they should be banned makes sense.

 

Furthermore, the views she held on LGBT issues were far right, not centrist. If someone wants far right, the Republican Party is always looking for new voters. I think it's completely possible and encouraged for someone to change their opinion. However, those views were extreme, and she clearly was gunning for progressives by endorsing a Democratic Socialist.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

12 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

This left/right bullshit is insane. 

There is no "left" in the United States political system.

[TheGreatGamble]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

If it doesn't infringe on free speech, then free speech in ensured. No platform is obligated to make sure white supremacists can post freely. No platform is obligated to allow you to expand your reach if you think the Sandy Hook kids were actors and didn't really die.

 

It's extreme to think otherwise. Thinking they should be banned makes sense.

 

Furthermore, the views she held on LGBT issues were far right, not centrist. If someone want far right, the Republican Party is always looking for new voters.

And she repudiated those views, while also explaining why she had them. Is that where the left is>? No redemption, no forgiveness? 

 

And you are correct, they are not obligated. But they should be. If they can say Trump can't be banned because his account is important to public discourse (and twitter has said this), then anything said that doesn't incite violence should be fair game. We don't need these companies to censor for us. Offended people need to learn to use block buttons. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

And you are correct, they are not obligated. But they should be. If they can say Trump can't be banned because his account is important to public discourse (and twitter has said this), then anything said that doesn't incite violence should be fair game. We don't need these companies to censor for us. Offended people need to learn to use block buttons. 

Or, even better, the tech companies like Facebook/Google/Twitter/etc. should be nationalized or broken up entirely.

[TheGreatGamble]

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

There is no "left" in the United States political system.

My point is that it has become "With us or against us". Its like its a crime to be a liberal and agree with conservatives on an issue (and vice versa). I've been called a republican because I support the 1st and 2nd ammendment proudly, but called a'libtard'because I support abortion and gay rights. Anyone who treats politics like a team sport needs to rethink their life. both sides have salient points on different issues. 

[TheGreatGamble]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

Or, even better, the tech companies like Facebook/Google/Twitter/etc. should be nationalized or broken up entirely.

This i agree with wholeheartedly. 

[SaysWho?]

11 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

And she repudiated those views, while also explaining why she had them. Is that where the left is>? No redemption, no forgiveness? 

 

And you are correct, they are not obligated. But they should be. If they can say Trump can't be banned because his account is important to public discourse (and twitter has said this), then anything said that doesn't incite violence should be fair game. We don't need these companies to censor for us. Offended people need to learn to use block buttons. 

 

Read the edit: I think she should be forgiven. But don't pretend she's a centrist. She both took far-right, not centrist views, on LGBT Americans, and she was not trying to be a centrist leading up to this election; she was gunning for progressives by endorsing a Democratic-Socialist.

 

They should not be obligated, which is the extreme view imo. Trump should be held to the same standard as others; the extreme view is that other people get banned for things he can get away with. Places like InfoWars aren't hindered by individuals blocking them; they're hindered by not allowing them to spread their shit as easily. If "centrists" think that social media companies should be obligated to let white supremacy, neo-Nazis, and people (weirdos who think that nobody really died in Sandy Hook) who harass the parents of dead children to use their platforms, then I'd argue they have a far-right and extreme view of what social media companies should do, while progressives are making the only sensible argument.

 

That's putting aside how centrist Democrats and right-wingers almost always take the progressive position later. The Democratic center is already right-wing as SFLUFAN pointed out. Progressives are arguing that there should be a true progressive option.

[TheGreatGamble]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Read the edit: I think she should be forgiven. But don't pretend she's a centrist. She both took far-right, not centrist views, on LGBT Americans, and she was not trying to be a centrist leading up to this election; she was gunning for progressives by endorsing a Democratic-Socialist.

 

They should not be obligated, which is the extreme view imo. Trump should be held to the same standard as others; the extreme view is that other people get banned for things he can get away with. Places like InfoWars aren't hindered by individuals blocking them; they're hindered by not allowing them to spread their shit as easily. If "centrists" think that social media companies should be obligated to let white supremacy, neo-Nazis, and people (weirdos who think that nobody really died in Sandy Hook) who harass the parents of dead children to use their platforms, then I'd argue they have a far-right and extreme view of what social media companies should do, while progressives are making the only sensible argument.

 

That's putting aside how centrist Democrats and right-wingers almost always take the progressive position later.

There’s the thing, free speech and harassment are not the same thing. Jones should be free to say Sandy Hook didn’t happen, he should not be free to target specific people. And yes I think white nationalist (nazis do not exist in America) should be allowed to express their disgusting hatred, as long as it isn’t targeted hatred. So yes, absolutely, obligate them. Free speech doesn’t include the right to harass or harm others.

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

There’s the thing, free speech and harassment are not the same thing. Jones should be free to say Sandy Hook didn’t happen, he should not be free to target specific people. And yes I think white nationalist (nazis do not exist in America) should be allowed to express their disgusting hatred, as long as it isn’t targeted hatred. So yes, absolutely, obligate them. Free speech doesn’t include the right to harass or harm others.

 

They are allowed to express conspiracy theories and white supremacy. A private company is not obligated to say that it's OK on their platform. Don't they have a right to say white supremacy is against Terms of Service? SFLUFAN's not obligated to a let a racist post here.

 

Racists have no right to a megaphone.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

They are allowed to express conspiracy theories and white supremacy. A private company is not obligated to say that it's OK on their platform. Don't they have a right to say white supremacy is against Terms of Service? SFLUFAN's not obligated to a let a racist post here.

Be glad that I don't force you guys to acknowledge that the Constitution is an archaic, outdated, degenerately repulsive document based on long-dead "Enlightenment" values that should be consigned to the flames as part of the TOS!

[TheGreatGamble]

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

They are allowed to express conspiracy theories and white supremacy. A private company is not obligated to say that it's OK on their platform. Don't they have a right to say white supremacy is against Terms of Service? SFLUFAN's not obligated to a let a racist post here.

 

Racists have no right to a megaphone.

When a platform becomes as important to politics as twitter has, so much so that foreign governments are using it to sway elections, then yes, they should have a right to that megaphone. Why is it everybody is so scared of speech they disagree with? You have the ability to block whoever you don’t want to hear.

[SaysWho?]

14 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

This i agree with wholeheartedly. 

 

I want to also respond to this since we're talking about centrism versus "both sides" being progressives vs. conservatives.

 

You believe they should be heavily relegated and broken up. You know who's saying that? One of the most progressives candidates running, not the "centrists."

 

What is extreme or centrist is usually a media narrative. Conservatives wanted to go into Iraq. Progressives said that's insane. "Centrists" said, "Okay, we'll vote for the Iraq War with a frown on our face like most Americans are."

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, TheGreatGamble said:

When a platform becomes as important to politics as twitter has, so much so that foreign governments are using it to sway elections, then yes, they should have a right to that megaphone. Why is it everybody is so scared of speech they disagree with? You have the ability to block whoever you don’t want to hear.

 

Blocking InfoWars doesn't hinder how they can spread their conspiracy theories that allow people to get harassed and allow people to get harassed. Television is also important for politics, but no racist has a right to its own television channel.

 

Saying white supremacists have a right to a megaphone is extremist. That's why what you're saying is not centered at all; it's far-right and music to the ears of the KKK and neo-Nazis. Nobody has a right to use Twitter.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

By the way, I ABSOLUTELY DESPISE the term "progressive".

 

It's a mealy-mouthed term that is so vacuous that it means absolutely nothing.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

By the way, I ABSOLUTELY DESPISE the term "progressive".

 

It's a mealy-mouthed term that is so vacuous that it means absolutely nothing.

 

I love it, so I use it religiously!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Man, it's almost as if this concept of "rights" and their attendant obligations/responsibilities is actually a bunch nebulous bullshit that pretty much is just made up as we go along!

[SaysWho?]

Just now, SFLUFAN said:

Man, it's almost as if this concept of "rights" and their attendant obligations/responsibilities is actually a bunch nebulous bullshit that pretty much is just made up as we go along!

 

 

Carlin never died. He was Wade the whole time.

[SaysWho?]

Klobuchar promises to ‘do better’ by her staff

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

21 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Be glad that I don't force you guys to acknowledge that the Constitution is an archaic, outdated, degenerately repulsive document based on long-dead "Enlightenment" values that should be consigned to the flames as part of the TOS!

Lol I won't read that tos either

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Also gabbard is an Assad apologist so still no thanks.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 hours ago, Anathema- said:

 

when david brooks is to ur left 

@b_m_b_m_b_m 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, SFLUFAN said:

@b_m_b_m_b_m 

I know this fucking reality is just I can't even anymore. Geraldo is woke, and so is David Brooks but Donald Trump is the president. I don't know if this is the best or worst timeline. 

 

I might actually read a David Brooks article I think I might be sick.

[TheGreatGamble]

41 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Blocking InfoWars doesn't hinder how they can spread their conspiracy theories that allow people to get harassed and allow people to get harassed. Television is also important for politics, but no racist has a right to its own television channel.

 

Saying white supremacists have a right to a megaphone is extremist. That's why what you're saying is not centered at all; it's far-right and music to the ears of the KKK and neo-Nazis. Nobody has a right to use Twitter.

So block those harassing others, not the one spreading a conspiracy theory.

 

and if free speech is a far right view to the left, then the left is as bad as the far right are.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

and if free speech is a far right view to the left, then the left is as bad as the far right are.

I consider the belief in the existence of "rights" (including so-called "free speech") to be an inherently leftist viewpoint.

 

Only through the complete and total rejection of the existence of "rights" can someone be described as right-wing.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

You realize those conservatives being banned from Twitter are banned for things like harassment and shit like that right?

[TheGreatGamble]

25 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Also gabbard is an Assad apologist so still no thanks.

I know multiple marines and some seals who have been in Syria. They all seem to agree that the rebels are the problem, not Assad. But the media has constantly sided with the rebels, even printing lies about chemical attacks that all evidence shows never happened.

 

i don’t have an informed opinion on Syria to make a decision personally, but those I know that do tend to side with the lawful government.

[TheGreatGamble]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

You realize those conservatives being banned from Twitter are banned for things like harassment and shit like that right?

That is an outright lie. Those banned for harassment should remain banned, but many have been banned for ideological shit, like misgendering. For blanket statements like “men can’t be women”. For speaking out against things they disagree with. It’s ridiculous.