Complaint Thread

[Darth_Raichu]

2 minutes ago, Mathew said:

It was a staged event. The participants were paid.  More of the divide and conquer strategy that is designed to put in place a one party system government.  Trump is a phony. 

Interestingly, 1 party is set to control both Legislative and Executive branches.  With that, more than likely the Judicial branch is next. 

Wouldn't that basically unite the different (opposing) factions against 1 enemy?

[Jbad87]

13 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

Wouldn't that basically unite the different (opposing) factions against 1 enemy?

The enemy of my enemy. 

[$20 on joe vs dan]

20 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

Interestingly, 1 party is set to control both Legislative and Executive branches.  With that, more than likely the Judicial branch is next. 

Wouldn't that basically unite the different (opposing) factions against 1 enemy?

I think the opposite may happen....party lines lose power w/ less division...for example..let's say it's a mixed group of Xbox and Playstation fanboys...if they were to take a vote on something then their allegiance to consoles will essentially dictate their vote...but if it was all Xbox then then individual opinions matter again...this may be a terrible example but it's the best I got... The dems think they will have "control" but in reality I think it will lead to more splintering (which is a good thing, imo)

Partisan politics is a reality but the magnitude can vary.  when individuals or small groups simply cannot win, then they need to ally themselves among party lines...but if DEM have the majority maybe individuals will have a voice again and votes are cast due to merit and not authorship.

any way you look at it; the mega-bill system with everyone's pet project in it needs to go!

[$20 on joe vs dan]

https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/trump-says-he-wont-attend-joe-bidens-inauguration/

Five people died in the Capitol break-in, including US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, 42, who reportedly was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher.

Trump supporter and Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, 35, was fatally shot by an officer while attempting to break through a barricaded interior window. Trump supporter Roseanne Boyland, 34, collapsed in the Rotunda and may have been trampled to death, her family told the Daily Mail. Trump supporter Kevin Greeson, 55, reportedly died from a heart attack and Benjamin Phillips, 50, reportedly had a stroke.

Anyone who thinks that this "demonstration" was more "peaceful" than the BLM demonstrations should also know that there were literally thousands of BLM protests with zero issues across the country and the world...but obviously the headlines are the bad apples. Weigh your opinions with good info please.

[Mathew]

I don’t think individuals matter to the globalists. Unless you’re a technocrat you won’t have much say or control. 

[spener90]

17 minutes ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

I think the opposite may happen....party lines lose power w/ less division...for example..let's say it's a mixed group of Xbox and Playstation fanboys...if they were to take a vote on something then their allegiance to consoles will essentially dictate their vote...but if it was all Xbox then then individual opinions matter again...this may be a terrible example but it's the best I got... The dems think they will have "control" but in reality I think it will lead to more splintering (which is a good thing, imo)

Partisan politics is a reality but the magnitude can vary.  when individuals or small groups simply cannot win, then they need to ally themselves among party lines...but if DEM have the majority maybe individuals will have a voice again and votes are cast due to merit and not authorship.

any way you look at it; the mega-bill system with everyone's pet project in it needs to go!

I really appreciate the metaphor. And it actually works really well too. In reality the differences between an Xbox and a PlayStation are extremely minute. So when you remove the illusion of choice, people can actually think about what they value.

No wonder we were warned about partisanship.

[Phil B]

Obviously hillbilly can be a term to describe an individual regardless of political opinion. If I were a strategist for the DNC, and used tactics not uncommon to what we do all around the world, I would have embedded individuals to instigate chaos and violence to push my objective. We will probably never know who paid who to do what but the vast majority of people out there were exercising one of greatest rights. 

You mean like the proven fact that the RNC embedded Proud Boys rioters in the otherwise peaceful BLM protest this summer, leading up to one person dead?

So far everything that the right wing and especially Trump have accused the left wing of, they (and only they) have done themselves:

- the only ones trying to Steal the Vote were Trump and his comrades
- the only swamp that needs draining is the nepotistic web of associates installed by the Trump administration
- the only Fake News spread has been the lies (“alternative facts”) spread by the right wing
- the only “embedding of rioters” done has not been done by Antifa, but by Proud Boys and other far-right organizations.

Moderators, please remove my post after a few mins (and Jbad’s) No need for this political talk on this forum. But I had to get this of my chest. It is despicable how even after the televisied facts of 1/6 some people still manage to justify this behavior one way or another.

Peace.

[$20 on joe vs dan]

4 minutes ago, Phil B said:

You mean like the proven fact that the RNC embedded Proud Boys rioters in the otherwise peaceful BLM protest this summer, leading up to one person dead?

So far everything that the right wing and especially Trump have accused the left wing of, they (and only they) have done themselves:

- the only ones trying to Steal the Vote were Trump and his comrades
- the only swamp that needs draining is the nepotistic web of associates installed by the Trump administration
- the only Fake News spread has been the lies (“alternative facts”) spread by the right wing
- the only “embedding of rioters” done has not been done by Antifa, but by Proud Boys and other far-right organizations.

Moderators, please remove my post after a few mins (and Jbad’s) No need for this political talk on this forum. But I had to get this of my chest. It is despicable how even after the televisied facts of 1/6 some people still manage to justify this behavior one way or another.

Peace.

i generally agree but extremist on the left are not innocent either; w/ that said, EXTREMIST have always been trouble makers ...it's just this this is the first time a sitting President picked a side

[$20 on joe vs dan]

Looks like the impeachment is happening:

read draft here: https://www.kron4.com/news/national/read-trumps-impeachment-draft-by-house-democrats/

We all know the biggest implication of impeaching a Prez w only a few days left.

AN impeached President cannot hold any federal offices again...cynically, I see this actually working since the Republicans w/ 2024 asperations are Trump's staunchest allies...but by impeaching him, they basically remove their greatest threat in 2024

[fuzzy_bricks]

24 minutes ago, Phil B said:

- the only swamp that needs draining is the nepotistic web of associates installed by the Trump administration

All these politicians may start out thinking it's a swamp, but once they get there they realize it's a hot tub.  Every politician installs their cronies in appointed positions, some are good, but most are just people they owe a favor to. 

Most of Congress just doesn't care about regular folks.  They would rather be campaigning against the other side, distracting everyone while they line their own pockets, than actually solving problems.

[Shortbus311]

I consider myself a Libertarian more than a Republican, but since the Libertarian party never really has a chance, more often than not I vote Republican. I don't necessarily support Trump and I will be glad to be rid of his rhetoric, even if I did vote for him.

As a veteran and someone who takes pride in our nation and the constitution I find it pretty sickening what happened on the 6th.

What annoys me most of all is the silencing of free speech, especially from large tech. If large tech, such as Twitter YouTube or FB want to regulate who can say what on their sites then they are a publisher and should be accountable for every tweet or post. If they want to continue to be a "platform" and not be held accountable for anything posted then they should allow every individual to post whatever they want no matter how distasteful or incorrect the message may be. Same goes for every single forum or website on the internet in my opinion...

[$20 on joe vs dan]

2 minutes ago, Shortbus311 said:

 If they want to continue to be a "platform" and not be held accountable for anything posted then they should allow every individual to post whatever they want no matter how distasteful or incorrect the message may be. Same goes for every single forum or website on the internet in my opinion...

this assumes some baseline level of "decency".  alas that's lacking in today's keyboard warrior reality

when someone is wrong on the internet...something snaps in people's brains

And altho I personably would close all of Trump's social media accounts; I know that's too much power for a non-regulated company...social media is such the dual edge sword...my (get of my lawn) self would rather it not exist but I get it.

[Shortbus311]

this assumes some baseline level of "decency".  alas that's lacking in today's keyboard warrior reality
when someone is wrong on the internet...something snaps in people's brains
And altho I personably would close all of Trump's social media accounts; I know that's too much power for a non-regulated company...social media is such the dual edge sword...my (get of my lawn) self would rather it not exist but I get it.

I disagree that any level of "decency" should be required or enforced. The first amendment gives everyone the right to freedom of speech, not freedom of speech as long as it is socially acceptable.

Hate speech is not a crime in this country and is actually protected under the constitution. You can stand out on the street corner and yell all of the racial slurs, curse words or untrue "facts" that you want to and that right is protected. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with any racist remarks or anything like that, but everyone has the right to say what they want.

I think social media companies that wish to simply be seen as a platform instead of a publisher should be forced to allow all people to say what they want no matter how indecent.

[$20 on joe vs dan]

8 minutes ago, Shortbus311 said:

I disagree that any level of "decency" should be required or enforced. The first amendment gives everyone the right to freedom of speech, not freedom of speech as long as it is socially acceptable.

Hate speech is not a crime in this country and is actually protected under the constitution. You can stand out on the street corner and yell all of the racial slurs, curse words or untrue "facts" that you want to and that right is protected. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with any racist remarks or anything like that, but everyone has the right to say what they want.

I think social media companies that wish to simply be seen as a platform instead of a publisher should be forced to allow all people to say what they want no matter how indecent.

sorry but context matters:

That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.³ Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.⁴ The final language was agreed upon in conference.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-1/ALDE_00000393/

the context implies that some form of decency is expected since the discussion is regarding the common good.

it's like the "right to bear arms" taken out of context someone can say I have the right to any weapon of my choice. 

these freedoms are not open ended free for alls...but created (In my layperson's opinion) with the intent of betterment of society...not for some whack job to say whatever and carry assault rifles anywhere they please

 

[Alpinemaps]

this assumes some baseline level of "decency".  alas that's lacking in today's keyboard warrior reality
when someone is wrong on the internet...something snaps in people's brains
And altho I personably would close all of Trump's social media accounts; I know that's too much power for a non-regulated company...social media is such the dual edge sword...my (get of my lawn) self would rather it not exist but I get it.

You don’t *have* to have social media. I dumped all of mine over the last couple of years. It’s been over a year since I’ve had a social media presence at all.

I don’t care what Trump or anyone else says on social media.

Social media is a “push” medium. You are getting pushed into that you may not want to see. You’re passively being inundated with information.

[$20 on joe vs dan]

Just now, Alpinemaps said:

You don’t *have* to have social media. I dumped all of mine over the last couple of years. It’s been over a year since I’ve had a social media presence at all.

I don’t care what Trump or anyone else says on social media.

Social media is a “push” medium. You are getting pushed into that you may not want to see. You’re passively being inundated with information.

my social media is Brickpicker...honestly Bold Arrow's post is what informed me about the Capitol news

[redghostx]

I'm not American, but as I understand it, the first amendment prohibits government from restricting speech, not corporations. Thus, Twitter can do what it likes, because this isn't covered under an exception or a separate clause.

While I can stand in the street spewing crap, I can't necessarily do that while following terms of service to a corporation. This of course ignores things like yelling "fire" to create panic and other such things.

Perhaps people with law degrees can better explain this to me, because that part actually is interesting and not for this site. Feel free to delete when 'The Mop' cleans up tonight.


Plus to@Alpinemaps for the no social media presence. I have a Facebook account that I use three to four times a year, because too many people that I volunteer with only use that, so I'm kind of stuck to get information out. Other than that, I've never had any social media presence and it makes my life much more relaxing. Bonus is making fun of my wife explain tiktok videos to me while I make a face at her.

[Shortbus311]

sorry but context matters:
That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.³ Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.⁴ The final language was agreed upon in conference.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-1/ALDE_00000393/
the context implies that some form of decency is expected since the discussion is regarding the common good.
it's like the "right to bear arms" taken out of context someone can say I have the right to any weapon of my choice. 
these freedoms are not open ended free for alls...but created (In my layperson's opinion) with the intent of betterment of society...not for some whack job to say whatever and carry assault rifles anywhere they please
 

The "common good" part applies only to the right to peaceably assemble and consult. It does not apply to the previous rights of freedom of speech or freedom of press.

The Supreme Court has long upheld that content or viewpoint restrictions of speech are unconstitutional, see Legal Services Corp v Velasquez (2001) or Snyder v Phelps (2011). And these are rulings handed down from liberal majority courts.

It is unconstitutional to limit someone's speech based on their views or content just because you disagree with what they are saying. If you allow limiting a racist viewpoint then why not the viewpoint of someone who just has different political views?

[NIevo]

2 hours ago, Phil B said:

You mean like the proven fact that the RNC embedded Proud Boys rioters in the otherwise peaceful BLM protest this summer, leading up to one person dead?

So far everything that the right wing and especially Trump have accused the left wing of, they (and only they) have done themselves:

- the only ones trying to Steal the Vote were Trump and his comrades
- the only swamp that needs draining is the nepotistic web of associates installed by the Trump administration
- the only Fake News spread has been the lies (“alternative facts”) spread by the right wing
- the only “embedding of rioters” done has not been done by Antifa, but by Proud Boys and other far-right organizations.

Moderators, please remove my post after a few mins (and Jbad’s) No need for this political talk on this forum. But I had to get this of my chest. It is despicable how even after the televisied facts of 1/6 some people still manage to justify this behavior one way or another.

Peace.

 

Holy hell I've never read more bullshit in my life🙄

[Alpinemaps]

I'm not American, but as I understand it, the first amendment prohibits government from restricting speech, not corporations. Thus, Twitter can do what it likes, because this isn't covered under an exception or a separate clause.

While I can stand in the street spewing crap, I can't necessarily do that while following terms of service to a corporation. This of course ignores things like yelling "fire" to create panic and other such things.

Perhaps people with law degrees can better explain this to me, because that part actually is interesting and not for this site. Feel free to delete when 'The Mop' cleans up tonight.


Plus to[mention=5626]Alpinemaps[/mention] for the no social media presence. I have a Facebook account that I use three to four times a year, because too many people that I volunteer with only use that, so I'm kind of stuck to get information out. Other than that, I've never had any social media presence and it makes my life much more relaxing. Bonus is making fun of my wife explain tiktok videos to me while I make a face at her.

Double edged sword, because I’d like to stay on top of my kids. But my wife has her social media accounts and uses them to monitor the kids. I monitor everything not social media.

I actually do have an Instagram account. I don’t post to it - just subscribe to all the LEGO Leakers so I can see what’s going on, in that front.

[redghostx]

Double edged sword, because I’d like to stay on top of my kids. But my wife has her social media accounts and uses them to monitor the kids. I monitor everything not social media.

I actually do have an Instagram account. I don’t post to it - just subscribe to all the LEGO Leakers so I can see what’s going on, in that front.

My kid is two, I don't have to worry about him on social media. I do have to help him steer his Mario Kart so the 5 laps don't take 40 minutes

[Mark Twain]

I disagree that any level of "decency" should be required or enforced. The first amendment gives everyone the right to freedom of speech, not freedom of speech as long as it is socially acceptable.

Hate speech is not a crime in this country and is actually protected under the constitution. You can stand out on the street corner and yell all of the racial slurs, curse words or untrue "facts" that you want to and that right is protected. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with any racist remarks or anything like that, but everyone has the right to say what they want.

I think social media companies that wish to simply be seen as a platform instead of a publisher should be forced to allow all people to say what they want no matter how indecent.

Twitter and all other social media platforms are private entities and first amendment rights do not apply—just as you have no first amendment right as an employee with a private company or can be asked to leave a private business for your speech or actions. The Macks are free to ban you or myself for our speech or actions on this board and that in no way infringes on our right to freedom of speech.

[NIevo]

2 hours ago, fuzzy_bricks said:

All these politicians may start out thinking it's a swamp, but once they get there they realize it's a hot tub.  Every politician installs their cronies in appointed positions, some are good, but most are just people they owe a favor to. 

Most of Congress just doesn't care about regular folks.  They would rather be campaigning against the other side, distracting everyone while they line their own pockets, than actually solving problems.

I agree for the most part.  Just look at the latest "stimulus" checks.  Individuals who are hurting are getting hundreds of dollars, yet the politicians, foreign governments and various worthless organizations are getting millions if not billions.  They get away with it because most people who just watch MSM don't realize what's actually in the bills because it doesn't fit the feel good agenda and all they care about is free money which really isn't free.  Not sure if it was in the bill that passed or not but one of them had a $50k+ pay raise for Congress in it🤬

[spener90]

30 minutes ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

my social media is Brickpicker...honestly Bold Arrow's post is what informed me about the Capitol news

Same here actually. I dumped Facebook 4 years ago (briefly went back after pressure from friends - crazy, but this actually happens), never had twitter. Not to go full Ron Swanson, but I tend to see the people I care about in real life, so I don't need to fill my life with random thoughts and pictures of people I last saw 10 years ago.

Edit: I also have you lot of unconventional knights.

Edited January 9, 2021 by spener90

[Fcbarcelona101]

Just now, Mark Twain said:

Twitter and all other social media platforms are private entities and first amendment rights do not apply—just as you have no first amendment right as an employee with a private company or can be asked to leave a private business for your speech or actions. The Macks are free to ban you or myself for our speech or actions on this board and that in no way infringes on our right to freedom of speech.

Agree.

Up to the users of the platform to decide whether they agree with the company’s actions and/or policies & enforcement of them and therefore whether they continue using or participating in such platform.

Personally, I wish Twitter was more consistent in the enforcement of their policies on who they ban and why, but they have lost a lot of credibility with me throughout time so I don’t really expect them to anymore.

Now, I only use them for very specific things, very sporadically.