Is is time that Trump got himself some 'big boy' pants?

[Rich Sam]

On 12/13/2020 at 6:48 AM, LanghamP said:

All politicians are functionally narcissist, because they are entering popularity contests. I would look at one or two levels below elected officials (political appointees and organizational heads), of which I've meet more than a few, being a former public servant. These people are mostly intelligent and balanced public servants by which the majority of invisible (and boring) governing takes place.

Could not have said it better myself!   In general, I have a distaste for politicians and their ability to check which direction the wind blows at the moment.  Trump is a special case though, he would set fire to world to hold on to power.  That is a special kind of narcissist, with a side of psychosis.

[Rich Sam]

On 12/27/2020 at 8:08 PM, mrelwood said:

 

I’d be very interested in hearing why you (and others who share your view) think they have ended up as such? Since I don’t think anyone would for example believe a secret far left extremist organization to have infiltrated the media and social media.

I would be as well!  My opinion is that I don't think it is the media that wants to censor so much, rather they want verifiable facts to back up information that could potentially hurt people.

[Chriull]

34 minutes ago, Circuitmage said:

Also, Trump and the Republicans attempting a coup to overthrow the election results with a congressional reversal of the results today should be tried for treason and domestic terrorism.

 

And the mob storming the capitol. 

A shame.

Seems democracy is a very scarce good nowadays

[atdlzpae]

On 1/1/2021 at 2:17 AM, atdlzpae said:

May your 2021 be the most boring year in your life!

 I think we can all agree that my wish has already failed.
We may very well be in the beginning stages of the next civil war. Especially now the US needs to be strong, not divided.

[Circuitmage]

I don't believe that will happen. We have created a vast infrastructure of democracy.

The fascist coup attempt failed and democracy has prevailed. Those that did harm are now being hunted down like the rats they are and will be set as example to anyone that thinks about doing this in the future.

The only reason they did , is that Trump was allowed to spread his delusional propaganda for 4 years, and the nuts came out of hiding thinking they had the "right". I even had a woman on the train 2 years ago tell me that the reason people from Mexico are not as successful as whites is because they are Hispanic. I'm not Hispanic, but I was born in Mexico...so I have not yet had the opportunity to thank her for explaining my situation. I was shocked at the time, but little did I know how much worse things would get.

 

We know now, and if we let it happen again it will be our fault.

 

[shellac]

1 hour ago, Circuitmage said:

I don't believe that will happen. We have created a vast infrastructure of democracy.

The fascist coup attempt failed and democracy has prevailed. Those that did harm are now being hunted down like the rats they are and will be set as example to anyone that thinks about doing this in the future.

Lol, come on this is wishful thinking and actively delusional. There’s tons of footage of cops letting the fascists in to storm the capitol. They are making some arrests but those people will be released with slaps on the wrist. Those “protestors” and LE are on the same side. They probably internally consider the woman who was killed a friendly fire incident. 

Anyways, I’m sorry you had that experience on the train. Trump certainly brought the racists out of the woodwork. They’ve always been there, they just became more outspoken. 

[atdlzpae]

Where are sensible people on top? Because I can't find any.
- Trump has an ego and tactlessness the size of the moon
- Biden is a demented, mumbling sellout
- Andrew Cuomo treats constitution like toilet paper with his lockdowns
- Nancy Pelosi is totally disconnected from non-millionaires
- Mitch McConnell undermines his own party
- Trump rioters are storming the capitol
- BLM and Antifa are terrorizing cities
- Mass media is stoking the fire like always

It looks to me like basically everyone on top is corrupt and a sociopath. On both sides.
Where are the sensible people? Who do you vote for if you just want to live your life?
The government is a cesspool, and there is no light in the tunnel. Maybe there should be term limits? 10 years and you're out of politics?

Edited January 7, 2021 by atdlzpae

[Chriull]

"Our incredible journey is only just beginning"

Trump, 2021-01-07

I assume it's to early for jokes and what happened is to serious but i don't get this one out of my head:

"After today's events, mexico has decided they will pay for the wall.

And Canada wants one too"

PS.: Sorry to all us citizens in despair about what's happening ...

 

[Circuitmage]

23 hours ago, shellac said:

Lol, come on this is wishful thinking and actively delusional. There’s tons of footage of cops letting the fascists in to storm the capitol. They are making some arrests but those people will be released with slaps on the wrist. Those “protestors” and LE are on the same side. They probably internally consider the woman who was killed a friendly fire incident. 

Anyways, I’m sorry you had that experience on the train. Trump certainly brought the racists out of the woodwork. They’ve always been there, they just became more outspoken. 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-foot-desk-pelosi-s-office-capitol-arrested-n1253490

 

[shellac]

Like I said, they’ll make arrests but I doubt they’ll get more than a slap on the wrist. We will see. 

 

Anyways I realize I sound cynical, because I am. Hopefully I’m wrong. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by shellac

[shellac]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/police-officer-killed-capitol.html

“Mr. Trump’s rhetoric did appeal to many rank-and-file police officers, and that was evident on Wednesday. As the mob marched to the Capitol, some officers were seen taking selfies with the Trump loyalists. Video footage captured a group of police officers moving aside barricades to allow the supporters to push ahead to the building. Activists said there was a clear double standard from this summer, when police forces came down hard on racial justice protesters, even though no police officers were killed during such protests in Washington.”

Thats why I’m skeptical of justice being served, but if feds take over maybe it will be less biased. 

[LanghamP]

2 hours ago, shellac said:

Activists said there was a clear double standard from this summer, when police forces came down hard on racial justice protesters, even though no police officers were killed during such protests in Washington.”

Police look at white people waving US flags as patriotic defenders. Black people protesting or even congregating in groups are looked upon as seditious. BLM protesters don't generally wear US flags, although, ironically, protesters waving US flags are seditious...

My view is that a majority of Trump supporters have rejected multicultural government, while BLM supporters want to be treated equally (legally and financially). And it's the rejection of multiculturalism that allows these seditious protesters to reject the voting results; if you think that certain people don't deserve to vote, then you'll reject voting results where they're the voting majority.

Although I'm a registered Republican, my viewpoint is firmly on the side of BLM (it certainly wasn't years ago) simply because tax revenue is collected in black neighborhoods and redistributed to suburban projects such as roads, schools, and housing subsidies. Blacks working hard and most of their income being confiscated while having receiving just a sliver of benefits...gosh, does that sound at all familiar?

 

[UniMe]

.....

Edited December 25, 2021 by UniMe

[atdlzpae]

11 hours ago, LanghamP said:

My view is that a majority of Trump supporters have rejected multicultural government, while BLM supporters want to be treated equally (legally and financially). And it's the rejection of multiculturalism that allows these seditious protesters to reject the voting results; if you think that certain people don't deserve to vote, then you'll reject voting results where they're the voting majority.

Everybody wants to be treated equally. It's just that everybody believes their rights are trampled on. And both sides have merit to their arguments.
Most of the racism I see is cultural, you can't really do anything about that legally.

11 hours ago, LanghamP said:

Although I'm a registered Republican, my viewpoint is firmly on the side of BLM (it certainly wasn't years ago) simply because tax revenue is collected in black neighborhoods and redistributed to suburban projects such as roads, schools, and housing subsidies. Blacks working hard and most of their income being confiscated while having receiving just a sliver of benefits...gosh, does that sound at all familiar?

I agree that it's atrocious. But it's not a red/blue thing - BLM protested mainly in Democrat controlled cities.
It's also not a black/white issue - everyone's taxes are wasted. Louis Rossmann recently analyzed the budget of New Jersey - the amount of debt is so atrociously high, essentially every tax dollar you pay goes to creditors.

How do you fix that? IDK... Term limits? Maybe there shouldn't be such a thing as a "professional politician"? You're part of the machine for 10 years and then you're back to real life?

Lots of those pricks are just completely disconnected from the working class. Why do people still actively vote for them?

9 hours ago, UniMe said:

I continue to maintain that all of this chaos is the direct result of Trump's actions which are invariably driven by his personality disorder.

Trump definitely has A LOT to do with it. He can't deescalate a conflict or admit fault if his life depended on it. But so does the media.

Every TV you turn on shits on Trump voters, there is no "both sides have legitimate grievances, let's woth together".
Most paper outlets also attack one side only. There is almost no talk about working together.
Twitter banned the sitting US president. How should people who supported him take that? Let the idiot make an idiot of himself - when you ban someone famous, they become a martyr.

When is Kathy Griffin gonna get banned? She twitted a beheaded Trump [graphic link] [mirror] like third time already... Rules for thee and not for me, huh?

There is an active purge of social media platforms - Apple and Google just removed Parlor app from their app stores.

Both sides have arguments, but censorship is very disproportionately against the right.

How is anyone not satisfied by the official narrative gonna take that? Every such move further escalates the conflict.
Every time you ban someone, you lose control over them. People banned from Facebook don't disappear - they go somewhere else, somewhere where they won't be exposed to arguments against their views. Letting their wrong ideas fester.

9 hours ago, UniMe said:

Trump doesn't care if people are hurt, if the country is split, he only cares about Trump and is unable to be anything other than this. It has never been "America First" and has always been "Trump First".

I agree with you about Trump. But don't you agree that both sides are at fault here? Left controls the social media - where is the platform where both sides can get together? Reddit recently banned /r/thedonald and they had to move into their own their own walled garden. How do you keep the conversation going if the powers that be actively censor it?

Bullets start flying when people stop talking. I'm sure we will see more BLM/Antifa/Proud/Boogaloo boys on the streets in 2021. And more windows shattered.

Edited January 10, 2021 by atdlzpae

[mrelwood]

1 hour ago, atdlzpae said:

censorship is very disproportionately against the right.

I ask you as well, why do you think that is? How has it come to be, and what could realistically be done about it?

[atdlzpae]

Writing one post takes about 1 hour (which includes thinking about arguments, gathering data and compressing it), and so I wanted to wait a few more days. But hell, since you insist...

On 12/28/2020 at 5:08 AM, mrelwood said:

I’d be very interested in hearing why you (and others who share your view) think they have ended up as such? Since I don’t think anyone would for example believe a secret far left extremist organization to have infiltrated the media and social media.

I'll go over two interpretations of this question:

Why do I think far left infiltrated social media?

Twitter banned the sitting president of the USA. 88 million followers.
Afterwards, Trump tweeted about censorship on @SCOTUS - the tweets were removed minutes after posting.
Afterwards, he was banned from Facebook and Shopify. Discord takes down "The Donald" server.

Parler, a "free speech" (although not really ) Twitter alternative gets banned by Google and Apple.
Even better, Amazon is removing Parler from its web hosting service.

I don’t think anyone would for example believe a secret far left extremist organization - and yet, how do you call an immediate action taken almost simultaneously by 3 giant companies to stifle a Twitter's competitor?

Twitter is actively censoring Bitchute links. No matter the content, it gets flagged, just for being from "Bitchute", a YouTube alternative.

Facebook banned the #WalkAway campaign with almost half a million people. Without providing a reason beyond a vague "violation of Terms of Use".

Twitter is currently actively banning thousands of conservative accounts.

Let's not forget about YouTube. There are lots of commentators who have to use "ended themselves" instead of "commited suicide" or "the coof" instead of "covid" to keep their monetization. And the list of forbidden phrases is not public.
And there are lots of cases where small creators are demonetized for showing the exact same (graphic) footage as CNN's and MSNBC's. Rules for thee and not for me.

Rowan Atkinson on free speech. The same thing is happening all over the world, including the UK and Poland. Poland still has f!@#ing blasphemy laws!

There is a lot more. For example Joe Rogan Experience with Tim Pool and Jack Dorsey is a really good, exhaustive dive into the topic of censorship on Twitter.

Reddit - Overlord Gaming did a really good analysis into how Reddit works and how it leads to bias.

 

How was it infiltrated?
These companies almost all originated in the Silicon Valley. Their headquarters are literally kilometers away. That by itself gives a 2/3 chance for the founder to lean left.
Add co-founders, investors, chief officers... Every one of them has 2/3 chance of leaning left.

Actually, it's even worse! 2/3 was just for California, San Francisco voting results were 85% Biden.

Now imagine, you're one of the conservative higher-ups in the company... Everyone else you know is leaning left. Everyone opposes you.
You think misgendering is fine, but you're outvoted...

What would you do? Because honestly, I'd just leave instead of wasting my time fighting an uphill battle.

 

What can be realistically done about it?
On a global scale? Nothing. A typical American has nothing to say about the situation. A foreigner like you or me even less. People on top don't care at all about the well-being of the middle-class.
Personally? Move to less controlled platforms. A person you follow got banned? Move to a platform they are on. I'm planning to switch from e-mail to Signal within days.

My current plan is to just earn money and to build an RV. To be mobile. If Poland becomes too totalitarian I'll move to another country.
Most people can't do that. Most people live paycheck-to-paycheck. Sometimes with huge mortgages on their houses. I have no idea what to tell them.

Edited January 10, 2021 by atdlzpae

[mrelwood]

2 hours ago, atdlzpae said:

How was it infiltrated?
These companies almost all originated in the Silicon Valley. Their headquarters are literally kilometers away. That by itself gives a 2/3 chance for the founder to lean left.
Add co-founders, investors, chief officers... Every one of them has 2/3 chance of leaning left.

Actually, it's even worse! 2/3 was just for California, San Francisco voting results were 85% Biden.

Now imagine, you're one of the conservative higher-ups in the company... Everyone else you know is leaning left. Everyone opposes you.
You think misgendering is fine, but you're outvoted...

Thank you for the thorough answer. What I have issue with though is the use of the word “infiltrate”. I’m not sure if the tone of the word is different in spoken English, but translators describe a process that includes an intent and a goal. What you described in the quote above though happened purely by chance. (Unless California leaning left is the effect and not the cause of Silicon Valley.) To me that makes using the word “infiltrate” in this context sound quite far from neutral. Maybe even slightly trying to make it sound scandalous.

[atdlzpae]

On 12/28/2020 at 5:08 AM, mrelwood said:

I’d be very interested in hearing why you (and others who share your view) think they have ended up as such? Since I don’t think anyone would for example believe a secret far left extremist organization to have infiltrated the media and social media.

As you can see in above quote, you used this word first. And thus, I left it in.

Regardless of the exact dictionary meaning, I don't believe that this was intentional. It was just a 1000 people each doing their own thing with good intentions.
But unfortunately, good intentions are very often short-sighted and have severe side-effects.

Remember how edgy 90's were? How masculinity and femininity were cherished, not ridiculed?
 

Quote

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.

Now even the word "retard", which was used daily just 10 years ago is demonized because it may "offend" someone.

[UniMe]

...

Edited December 25, 2021 by UniMe

[atdlzpae]

8 hours ago, UniMe said:

This will fade away after Trump has less airtime and less ability to split people and pit them against each other.
It is Trump who is fomenting the inability to communicate between both sides through his constant manipulation of the media and his incitement of hatred.

I totally agree with you that Trump is divisive and it's not a good attribute for a leader to express.
However, you're mistaken if divisiveness will just go away when he's gone - the other side doesn't answer the grievances that created this situation. Biden is just 4 more years of the establishment.

Where is Tulsi Gabbard? Why do sensible, moderate candidates never get more than 10%? Why are we always stuck between two "lesser" evils?

8 hours ago, UniMe said:

Conservative voices are not being silenced, they have dominated the media 24/7 for the last 4 years. The rhetoric of these views being silenced is just another ploy to turn people with different views against each other.

Pew Research Center: Covering President Trump in a Polarized Media Environment

Keep in mind that those were first 60 days of his administration.
Yes, Trump dominated media for the last 4 years, but only because "Orange man bad" sells. He brings ratings.
But this doesn't change the fact that almost all media is controlled by the establishment, and so the coverage is overwhelmingly negative.

8 hours ago, UniMe said:

But I will ask you this, does a voice that promotes hatred and violence have the right to be protected?

Does a president who intentionally pushes his country towards civil war because it serves his purposes and desires have the right to continue using media platforms to move his country towards destruction?

Light is the best disinfectant.
Let's say you ban anti-vaxers, QAnons or Antifa... They don't disappear, they just go to a different social network where they don't get exposed to counterarguments.

Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.

I agree with the law about this. Direct calls for violence and death threats should be illegal. However, "promoting hatred" is extremely vague and can become a slippery slope.

Can you please provide a few specific examples of messages with intention of pushing country towards civil war? Your eye will be much better at spotting this than me.

Edited January 11, 2021 by atdlzpae

[shellac]

48 minutes ago, atdlzpae said:

I totally agree with you that Trump is divisive and it's not a good attribute for a leader to express.
However, you're mistaken if divisiveness will just go away when he's gone - the other side doesn't answer the grievances that created this situation. Biden is just 4 more years of the establishment.

Where is Tulsi Gabbard? Why do sensible, moderate candidates never get more than 10%? Why are we always stuck between two "lesser" evils?

Pew Research Center: Covering President Trump in a Polarized Media Environment

Keep in mind that those were first 60 days of his administration.
Yes, Trump dominated media for the last 4 years, but only because "Orange man bad" sells. He brings ratings.
But this doesn't change the fact that almost all media is controlled by the establishment, and so the coverage is overwhelmingly negative.

Light is the best disinfectant.
Let's say you ban anti-vaxers, QAnons or Antifa... They don't disappear, they just go to a different social network where they don't get exposed to counterarguments.

Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.

I agree with the law about this. Direct calls for violence and death threats should be illegal. However, "promoting hatred" is extremely vague and can become a slippery slope.

Can you please provide a few specific examples of messages with intention of pushing country towards civil war? Your eye will be much better at spotting this than me.

The First Amendment is irrelevant of course. It applies to government, while contract law applies for these platforms. If you want the First Amendment to apply, first those companies would have to be nationalized. Or the government would have to start its own social media network. 

Studies have shown bans actually do work, like when reddit banned a bunch of toxic subs in 2015. Slippery slope arguments are simply a logical fallacy. It’s possible for platforms to ban certain specific speech like calls to violence and it never become broader than that.

Tulsi was a supporter of Modi who is a fascist. She did have some positive aspects, like her anti-imperialism.

You’re calling all American politicians corrupt sellouts but that’s simply not true. Yes most of them are, here it is a corporate oligarchy unfortunately, but those on the progressive side like AOC aren’t. Bernie Sanders is one of the most popular politicians in the country and has never been bought out by any lobbyist or wall st concern. Of course the establishment couldn’t tolerate him becoming president and put a stop to that.

You’re overly concerned with debt and inflation and whatnot which I would attribute to your unfortunate libertarian Ron Paul readings. I suggest you read up on Modern Monetary Theory, maybe one of Stephanie Kelton’s books. Quantitative easing under Obama was basically a form of MMT. It does not and will not cause inflation, if properly implemented. 

Poland seems to be in the midst of something similar to or even worse than Trumpism here in the US, and I sincerely hope you guys can find your way out of that dark road. 

[shellac]

So is Trump banned or not if he wants to post in the EUC forums? I heard he wants to get a Veteran. You know, to support the troops. 

[Circuitmage]

@atdlzpae Regarding the "left infiltrated social media", this can be directly compared to similar situations the right is pushing to allow businesses to not serve those they don't want to (ie gay wedding cakes). This is a direct throw back to the 50's and 60's segregation. So, to hear any right wing snowflake complain about censorship just reminds me that Trump is a gay wedding cake in the argument. It only makes sense if you have someone on social media (private companies) telling lies and motivating people to commit treason, then they should be cut off. If the laws in the land will not or cannot do it, then it is up to us as individuals and private parties to handle the matters.

Obviously , the right has lost it's spine and turned fascist.

 

[LanghamP]

1 hour ago, Circuitmage said:

@atdlzpae Regarding the "left infiltrated social media", this can be directly compared to similar situations the right is pushing to allow businesses to not serve those they don't want to (ie gay wedding cakes). This is a direct throw back to the 50's and 60's segregation. So, to hear any right wing snowflake complain about censorship just reminds me that Trump is a gay wedding cake in the argument. It only makes sense if you have someone on social media (private companies) telling lies and motivating people to commit treason, then they should be cut off. If the laws in the land will not or cannot do it, then it is up to us as individuals and private parties to handle the matters.

 

 

The gay wedding cake case (presumably when the bakery refused to bake a cake for two gays who had a history of going to bakeries and requesting gay themed cakes, and then sueing said bakeries) is, to me, somewhat contradictory to the power that media and large retail stores to ban customers.

1. Do Christian bakeries serve all?

2. Do media social networks serve all?

If your doctor, Facebook/twitter, your landlord, or Walmart can fire you as a customer while banning you from being on the premise for any or no reason, then do Christian bakeries have the same right?

However, social media (end user agreement) and your landlord (arbitration) does require you to sign away your rights before you can use their facilities. Walmart, famous for charging and banning customers, seems to get around an EUA by simply going to court often.

 

 

[Rich Sam]

13 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

The gay wedding cake case (presumably when the bakery refused to bake a cake for two gays who had a history of going to bakeries and requesting gay themed cakes, and then sueing said bakeries) is, to me, somewhat contradictory to the power that media and large retail stores to ban customers.

1. Do Christian bakeries serve all?

2. Do media social networks serve all?

If your doctor, Facebook/twitter, your landlord, or Walmart can fire you as a customer while banning you from being on the premise for any or no reason, then do Christian bakeries have the same right?

However, social media (end user agreement) and your landlord (arbitration) does require you to sign away your rights before you can use their facilities. Walmart, famous for charging and banning customers, seems to get around an EUA by simply going to court often.

 

 

Lowest distilled denominator is that it comes down to is orientation a protected status like gender and\or age.  I feel it should be a protected status, but I'm not making the laws…

The bigger picture and the comparison to social media are comparing apples and oranges in my opinion.  Social media has pretty narrow restrictions, it is hard to get banned.

Basically don't incite violence, don't lie about something that could hurt people.  Should be a no brainer for most folks.