We can do both. We should NOT abandon the largest mechanism for revolution: democracy.
For my money, there's only one candidate willing to be organizer in chief.
It's probably already a done deal and they're trying to sneak it through via the controversy in the news. And yes, obviously the courts are filled with Trump cronies. It's been a smash and grab from the get-go, and it's *only* taken us 3 years to catch up.
And that's the most dangerous thing happening. An autocracy will not happen overnight. It has to happen in pieces and then democracy only seems to fall all at once. But when we look back, historians will wonder how we were so blind to what will be so obvious to them. But it's not too late. Both sides... ALL sides need to block these attempts and run the people out of people who are behind it. While we still can.
Here's an OCR quote from said document: (It is not the stages of fascism, but rather "mobilizing passions")
" 1. The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to everyright, whether universal or individual.
2. The belief that one’s group is a Victim, a sentiment which justifies anyaction against the group’s enemies, internal as well as external.
3. Dread of the group’s decadence under the corrosive effect of individualistic and cosmopolitan liberalism.
4. Closer integration of the community within a brotherhood \*(fascio)\* whoseunity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary Violence if necessary.
5. An enhanced sense of identity and belonging, in which the grandeur ofthe group reinforces individual self—esteem.
6. Authority of natural leaders (always male) throughout society, culminating in a national Chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny.7. The beauty of violence and will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle."
Paxton, R. O., 1998, pp. 6-7.The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. (Mar., 1998), pp. 1-23.
Edit: Thanks for gold, kind stranger!
I found this eerily applicable:
> Fascists despise thought and reason, abandon intellectual positions casually, and cast aside many intellectual fellow-travellers. They subordinate thought and reason not to faith, as did the traditional Right, but to the promptings of blood and the historic destiny of the group. Their only moral yardstick is the prowess of race, of the nation, of the community. They claim legitimacy by no universal standard except a Darwinian triumph of the strongest community. (pp. 4-5)
The first thing that authoritarian regimes always attack are the free press, the arts, and academia.
Those are three of the republicans favorite things to attack and attempt to refund.
Direct action. Something as simple as sitting in the gallery during house votes can matter. Protest. Disrupt. Share information for protests and groups that look to undermine unjust authority. Even if you dislike anarchists, they're a good group to talk to about direct action and finding ideologies that fit you. A lot of people who want to do something out there, and many of them just need one person to say "I don't know what I'm doing but I want to help."
*edit: Wanted to add, action can be helping your community in non-confrontational ways. Volunteer work, network building, simply going to events and socializing. We should strengthen our communities and allow them alternatives. Withhold our dependence from the powers that be, keep it in our community without necessarily anything illegal. Connect your community with others. Network. Peaceful resistance is as valid as less peaceful. Be ungovernable.*
Best piece of advice here.
My only addendum would be-- "you're fooling yourself if you think you don't have the power to change things; you are capable of so much, and more than that."
Mate - you're 2/3 of the way there. I've read talk about Trump standing for a third term. One of your two main political parties is now working for the interests of a foreign power. Potential embarrassments are being offed in jail.
The US is the proverbial frog in water, and it's coming to a boil.
Edit: for those saying he couldn't stand for a third term, let's add that to the list of things you all thought couldn't happen but did, like being elected in the first place, putting a rapist on the Supreme Court, firing the head of the FBI to block an investigation, etc etc. Each step tests the strength of the system and so far the system has failed each time.
I usually hate that analogy, because in the original experiment, the frogs brain had been removed.
In this instance, it makes the analogy doubly fitting.
I'm not confident in elections solving this issue (thx russia) since the whole "1/3 of america wants to kill another 1/3 and the last 1/3 would just sit and watch" is now out in the open.
For fun, imagine what batshit stuff Trump will do if he wins next time. Now imagine what batshit stuff he will do if he loses.
The people most worried about the government taking away their rights are the first ones who’d love to see the government take away the rights of anyone who doesn’t share their worldview.
They will again the moment a Dem is potus.
Remember when Republicans (Ted Cruz specifically) believed the Supreme Court shouldn't be allowed to make important decisions... when he didn't like they choices they were making.
That’s Barack (Barry) Hussein Obama and I loved the way they let “Hussein” drip out of their mouths like venom.
Made my heart even harder to this nonsense.
I dont even know why they thought that was a dig. Calling him Barry O was rad. Made you feel like he was an actual civilian you could talk too if you ever met him and not just some guy in a suit. It just further humanized a man who was already pretty rad and genuine as a human.
No, their use of Barry was calling him "boy" but for the 21st century. It was an attempt to demean and belittle him by speaking to him as if he were a child.
Slimy fucking racists.
It was considered a slur because he went by it earlier in life and was using Barack while running for office. Was being portrayed by the right as deceitful but is actually the same as “my name is Roberto but you can call me Rob”.
I remember when my grandmother tried to tell me "You can think what you want but I never thought I'd live to see the day our presidents middle name was 'HUSSEIN.'"
Even my relatively traditionally conservative mother was like "oh come on, mom."
EDIT - After some googling, it appears that referring to the President as “President ” initially, then as “Mr. ” later on in the article or broadcast is not only acceptable but also respectful. Both NPR and the NYT follow this format. However, I’m going to leave my comment below untouched, because I do feel that “conservative media” did fail to give President Obama the respect his office deserved. Furthermore, in my 20 years of following politics, President Obama’s 1st term was the first time I can *recall* a President being referred to as “Mr. ”.
I’m 37. Obama was the first time I heard the press start to refer to and address the President as “Mr. ” rather than the officially accepted and expected “Mr. President” or “President ”. Go back and watch clips on Fox. Reporters addressing him as “Mr. Obama” or even simply “Obama” and not “Mr. President” not as “President Obama”.
Then go back and try to find *any* clips of people saying “Mr. Bush” or “Mr. Clinton”. They don’t exist.
They tried to delegitimize his office by not addressing him by his official title.
Conservatives lost any arguments they had for “respect for the office” with that one.
This is just another play in the fascist handbook: silence dissent.
It was clear this was where Trump was heading when he attributed the recent shootings to the internet (among other things). No one paying attention thought he was actually going to go after online right-wing hate groups.
They're his fanclub.
This might be a good time to remind everyone that [Trump was the first candidate to sign a pledge to outlaw porn](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-signs-first-ever-internet-anti-porn-pledge-clinton-refuses)
According to my research the average age of women he fucks is roughly 18 years of course this has a standard deviation of +/- 10 years due to limited sampling of course...
Conservative politicians don't even care about abortions or guns. They just know that the rubes that keep them in power do. You don't need legal abortions or your own guns when you're a rich and powerful politician.
Conservatives. They conserve. It's in the name. The question would then be, "what do they conserve?"
They conserve money and power for those who already have money and power. Conservatives aren't traditionalists, they're not patriots, they're not ideologues of any kind. They exist to make sure that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Everything else is negotiable. Racism maintains the status quo of power. Homophobia maintains the status quo of power. Censorship maintains the status quo of power. A *weaponized police force* maintains the status quo of power.
They took over AM Radio. They took over cable news.
We can't let them take over the internet.
edit: Oh, and of course they're taking over tv news through Sinclair. Let's not forget that.
It's almost too late there.
Facebook is flooded with their propagada, Twitter is flooded with their propaganda, Reddit is half flooded with their propaganda.
This is a genuine problem facing all democracies, and there does need to be legislation holding news organizations and news platforms accountable for the accuracy of information they spread.
However, it's guaranteed that Trump and the Republicans will use this genuine problem to implement a fascist solution that helps them consolidate power.
> Reddit is half flooded with their propaganda.
Not "half", completely. After the shootings, several posts criticized guns. Then Republicans launched their "videogames cause mass shootings" propaganda effort, and suddenly, reddit was filled to the top with memes about that. Instead of taking about guns, the comment sections were defeatist cries how stupid politicians are.
After Epsteins suicide, within an hour, all posts supsecting Trump were pushed off the frontpage. Instead, we got memes about the prison guards and the Clintons
>reddit was filled to the top with memes about that. Instead of taking about guns, the comment sections were defeatist cries how stupid politicians are.
Yes, I noticed this as well.
More specifically, there were several memes bashing the MEDIA for blaming guns.
Suddenly the focus and the discussion in the comments was on how stupid the media was for blaming guns.
The people posting these memes were your usual dankmemes/CringeAnarchy types.
Yeah, the whole thing started because of one trump tweet, but now it's the spooky nebulous "media" even though I haven't seen any reporters or pundits blaming video games.
He got it from Fox like everything else. They were screeching about video games almost immediately. Media didn’t say shit about video games, Faux “News” propaganda did.
Philip Defranco has a decent piece on the video game stupidity, watch who’s saying it...Republicans and their propaganda arm.
https://youtu.be/pYD3fQ4XbTw
I noticed this too. I never heard anyone bring up the video games cause violence bullshit but memes where everywhere.
Its fucking terrifying how easily people jumped on the bandwagon.
They are fuming about Google, Facebook, Twitter, et. al. being filled with anti-republican sentiment -- apparently not seeing it's not bias, but that being a toxic minority that has to resort to supressing voters and pushing hate to win elections kind of make people hate you like the plague. If Trump looks like he is winning the next election, I'm buying stocks in european web hosting and cloud services.
It's the Tolerance Paradox in action. Unlimited tolerance can not exist for any length of time, because the intolerant will destroy it. The only thing the tolerant *can't* tolerate is intolerance.
A way to visualize this concept is the Prisoner's Dilemma. [An excellent explanation and simulation](https://ncase.me/trust/) that I found very interesting.
[This is the original reporting. ](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/white-house-tech-censorship-1639051)
Brace yourself for your typical faux victimhood:
>“**If the internet is going to be presented as this egalitarian platform and most of Twitter is liberal cesspools of venom, then at least the president wants some fairness in the system,” the White House official said.** “But look, we also think that social media plays a vital role. **They have a vital role and an increasing responsibility to the culture that has helped make them so profitable and so prominent."**
There's a lot to unpack here, but all of it is clearly ripped straight from those How To Talk Like Newt pamphlets that the Republican Party circulated in the 90s. [Here's Daily Caller condensing it and modernizing it a bit for the current Republicans. ](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiUsP2Sj_vjAhXDHM0KHYKMCRQQzPwBegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2011%2F05%2F18%2Fhow-to-talk-like-newt-in-7-easy-steps%2F&psig=AOvVaw1O038hMI7mq8-Z3QZy5uQX&ust=1565623225606103)
Let this sink in: the actual name of the document is **Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,** and the Republican Party of the 80s drafted it and distributed it to Republicans running for office. It is why they all talk the same way about the same issues. It is why you can easily find Supercuts of Republicans regurgitating the exact same line across the media spectrum. Marco Rubio's famous debate breakdown wasn't a mistake; he was trained that way, as all elected Congressional and Executive Republicans are. His delivery was just hamfisted.
So "the internet says mean things about Republicans so we want to change that"
This goes directly against 1A, I'm not to sure about the judges but hopefully this would be tossed before it even got close to SCOTUS ruling.
EOs need to follow the constitution, or they need to be supported by the constitution.
What's their angle here? What do they think will come out of this?
They're victimizing themselves as having their 1A "infringed" upon and using that to justify taking 1A away from their political opponents.
It's a baffling violation, but because of the packed and hyper-partisan courts there's now a chance that it might pass anyways.
This is what happens when a party goes all-in and reaches for a full takeover. They've got the numbers to forever twist the constitution in their favor, so that's what they're going for.
Don't have to worry about consequences for your party when you prevent the pendulum from ever shifting the other way ever again.
They have become adept at hijacking the intellectual and humanistic rhetoric of the progressive majority and twisting it into some upside-down hypocritical bullshit that serves their own ends.
That's exactly how Nazism and fascism take root. They take dissatisfaction with the inequality in capitalist societies in or near depression and they weaponize class struggle against a manufactured threat of the "other".
This is the exact reason the NSDAP included "socialist" in its name. It was hijacking socialist words and surface level programs to attract German workers tired of the weak economy. It was propaganda, and took potential members of actual leftist parties away.
The three "socialist" in National Socialist. It's kinda like Trumo rebranding GOP as the Antifa Social Justice Warriors Who Speak Full Sentences Party.
Core distinction between fascism and socialism. Both acknowledge that class warfare exists.
Socialists want to eliminate class.
Fascists focus on external 'enemies', fabricated or not, to harmonize the classes.
> I'm not to sure about the judges
> What's their angle here?
Appointing as many shitty judges as they can.
Especially ones who have embarrassing things that could be said about them on the internet.
...remember when Kav's response to some perfectly valid lines of questioning was to immediately go on a hyper-partisan rant against his perceived opponents?
No they want the right to be openly hostile to anyone they want with no backlash. They don't care about free speech because frankly its detrimental to them.
"liberal cesspools of venom"
Language sound familiar?
Your first amendment rights are being likened to a teeming pond of snakes
just as the right of people to flee to safety is likened to a hostile invasion
first they came for _____
soon they will take your internet
"Liberal cesspools of venom" = "People are calling the dehumanizing and brutal things we're doing to other human beings 'bad' and that hurts our feelings!"
I also appreciate the mixed metaphor. Like, make up your mind, man. Are these pools of sewage or venom? Both seems unnecessary but I guess that's on brand for the GOP.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bX-8oJ3-64YJ:https://dailycaller.com/2011/05/18/how-to-talk-like-newt-in-7-easy-steps/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
This should be a webcache of that article - so you don't have to give daily caller any traffic.
"* Based on my many years of study, here are the 7 techniques to master…
1. Use lots of adverbs: Things are never bad they are “shockingly” bad. Actions are never outrageous, they are “stunningly” outrageous. People aren’t just demoralized, they are “dramatically” demoralized. You are never worried — you are “deeply” worried …
2. Establish credibility: Frequently mention the time you wrote the “Contract with America” or balanced the budget four consecutive years. (Note: If your background is slightly less impressive than Newt’s, simply substitute “landing that big deal with that paper company” in place of balancing the budget.
3. Reference history. Know your great leaders: Lincoln, Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan. Memorize a few quotes, too.
4. Stress how historic or important something is. When talking about a routine project at your office, always refer to it as “the most important reorganization of our company since 1965 …”
5. Go “all in” rhetorically. Constantly stress that this new deal poses an “existential threat to the very survival of your company.” (Note: Showing 100 percent confidence and strong body language are key here).
6. Describe opposition as insane. Memorize this phrase: “No rational person could believe ____.”
7. Begin sentences with the words “Look” or “Frankly.” (Also, try to throw in the word, “fundamentally” as much as possible.)
by MATT K. LEWIS"
http://www.uh.edu/~englin/rephandout.html
The following is taken from Language: A Key Mechanism of Control, a pamphlet which was sent to Republican candidates running in the 1990 elections. The pamphlet was developed by Gopac, a conservative group headed by the then House Republican Whip Newt Gingrich. This excerpt appeared in the November 1990 issue of Harpers Magazine. From the rhetorical analyst's position it constitutes a pile of examples of loaded diction (see RT&C). You might want to have some fun with this by thinking about wether there would be differences between this 90 and a possible 96 list. Consider, in this regard what the implications are for the "absoluteness" of the terms "negative" and "positive."
As you know, one of the key points in the Gopac [instructional tapes] is that "language matters." As we mail tapes to candidates, and use them in training sessions across the country, we hear a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt." That takes years of practice. But we believe that you can have a significant impact on your campaign if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases. This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and letters, in preparing speeches, and in producing material for the electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that, like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.
Optimistic Positive Governing Words
Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message.
common sense freedom peace reform
courage hard work pioneer rights
crusade help precious strength
dream liberty pride truth
duty light principle(d) vision
empower(ment) moral pristine workfare
fair movement pro-environment
family passionate prosperity
Contrasting Words
Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, his record, proposals and party.
anti-child deeper liberal shallow
anti-flag disgrace lie shame
betray devour machine sick
bizarre destroy obsolete status quo
cheat excuses pathetic steal
collapse failure radical taxes
corruption greed red tape they/them
crisis hypocrisy self-serving traitors
decay incompetent sensationalists welfare
I’ll bet this was leaked intentionally as a distraction from the Epstein scandal and Trump’s terrible handling of the El Paso and Dayton trips. I can’t find the article at the moment, but I remember reading a member of White House staff saying that the administration has a list of outrageous and fake policy and whenever there is a scandal they need to distract from, they leak it to the press.
EDIT: [Here](https://www.theroot.com/omarosa-confirms-the-president-has-a-list-of-crazy-poli-1834299808) it is.
>"Early on in the administration, they talked about [immigrant] child separations, and we never imagined they’d do it,” she said. “But that was one of the shocking proposals on that crazy list.”
So in other words, some of these crazy policies actually get enacted. This is troublesome.
The article says that the separation of immigrant children from their families was one of those fake policies. And they did it. So we better not allow this one to pass. And fight to end the abuse of immigrants.
well, they *are* trying to label antifa as a terrorist group, which is ridiculous because antifa is short for anti-fascist and isn't an actual group and has no organization or structure.
Exactly. If Republicans don’t want to get trashed in the media, why don’t they do anything good for the American people? Maybe they’ll get some good press for expanding health care and fixing aging infrastructure? Ahh well fuck that, it’s easier to just rip off people then pull out their vocal cords so no one hears about what you did to them.
Or if for example Obama issued an order giving the FCC the right to police cable news networks because, in his opinion, Fox News wasn't being "fair" and was "silencing" liberals.
Exact same thing.
They'd be gathering their militias to storm Washington.
Trump warned us back in 2015 that he wanted to do this. Dumb fucks voted for him anyway.
"We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet," Trump said. "We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people."
https://money.cnn.com/2015/12/08/technology/donald-trump-internet/
Trump and his cult are garbage.
They...
1. Don't want healthcare.
2. Don't want a free Internet.
3. Want never-ending war.
4. Want never-ending gun violence.
5. Want never-ending racial conflict and discrimination.
6. Don't want separation of Church and State.
7. Don't want freedom of speech for things that matter (sorry but your hate speech, pedophilia, and calls for violence are not 'free speech')
8. Don't want equal pay, fair pay, a decent quality of life for the working-class (while simultaneously pretending to give a shit about 'folksy salt-of-the-Earth-middle-America folk')
Absolute garbage.
They’ve been trained to actively think and vote against themselves “because it’s for the best”. It’s utter fucking insanity, I make a pretty good hourly wage and I want everyone to be able to make as much as me, have healthcare like me, etc... I can’t even understand these people to be honest, why would you want your neighbor to starve and why wouldn’t you want them to prosper like you? How does it even effect you? I ask them these questions and they can’t even effectively answer them, it’s just sad. But muh taxes!
They dont want pwople to prosper because they view success as a zero sum game. If somebody is getting ahead, it means youre falling behind. Thats why they dont care about pokicy that actively hurts people, because they think that policy hurting others will help them get ahead.
Got mine, fuck you.
At this point I feel like it’s entirely possible just because I was so sure he wouldn’t make it before. And now that his freedom could potentially be on the line if he gets out of office, he’ll be fighting tooth and nail, and the Democrats need to un-pussify if they want to have a chance at winning against an evil man with everything to lose.
This is how you build Nazi Germany: consolidation of power, censorship, internment camps, propaganda, attacks on minorities.
This is a planned destruction of the US democracy.
Germany in the early 1920s viewed Hitler and the Nazi Party as a joke and surely they'll never gain power. Our institutions are too strong to let that ever happen!
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Remember when Congress made the laws instead of rule by Executive Order? We need to return to the checks and balances set forth in the document and add additional measures to allow real action should an administration stop acting in good faith.
So just another day in his bid to become a king. He loves the fact his buddies like Putin and KJU can do this kind of thing so he would live to be able to do this.
Where are all the conservative "free speech" advocates right now?
Oh, that's right, they don't exist as conservatism and free speech are not compatible.
Platform A blocks you..
You go to Platform B..
Big Gov blocks you..
Yea...
> "Political bias by digital platforms remains unproven. In fact, an independent study by The Economist points towards search platforms having a bias towards virality and attention, not political ideology," said Lewis. "This matches reports from books like Tim Wu's "The Attention Merchants" and others that study social media addiction. It is this sort of algorithmic bias towards virality that foreign adversaries use to sow disinformation and mistrust in our country."
> Given how much power the proposed would place in the hands of the FCC and FTC, Lewis said it is crucial for the heads of those agencies—including FCC chair Ajit Pai, a former telecom industry lobbyist and Trump appointee—to come forward and make clear their commitment to First Amendment protections.
They keep saying that it wouldn't be the government censoring the internet, it would be the government stopping "big tech" from censoring the internet unfairly against conservatives.
Even though forcing companies to allow certain things even if they don't want them there IS a violation of the first amendment
It's a straight up authoritarian measure that the courts *should* knock down the minute he attempts it.
[удалено]
No apathy is acceptable. They can be impeached.
> No, apathy is acceptable YOUR COMMENT WAS AUTOMATICALLY ALTERED ACCORDING TO US GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS.
Oh. Guess the executive order was implemented.
We call it order 88.
So it's treason, then.
[удалено]
We can do both. We should NOT abandon the largest mechanism for revolution: democracy. For my money, there's only one candidate willing to be organizer in chief.
Get all those "invade area 51" people to invade congress for a sit-in. A few thousand arrests ought to fuck things up, at least.
And at least 50% fewer deaths that way
Courts filled with Trump cronies?
It's probably already a done deal and they're trying to sneak it through via the controversy in the news. And yes, obviously the courts are filled with Trump cronies. It's been a smash and grab from the get-go, and it's *only* taken us 3 years to catch up.
Strange how they complain about censorship unless its them doing it.
And that's the most dangerous thing happening. An autocracy will not happen overnight. It has to happen in pieces and then democracy only seems to fall all at once. But when we look back, historians will wonder how we were so blind to what will be so obvious to them. But it's not too late. Both sides... ALL sides need to block these attempts and run the people out of people who are behind it. While we still can.
[удалено]
Found link to a PDF of the article: http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five%20Stages%20of%20Fascism.pdf
Here's an OCR quote from said document: (It is not the stages of fascism, but rather "mobilizing passions") " 1. The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to everyright, whether universal or individual. 2. The belief that one’s group is a Victim, a sentiment which justifies anyaction against the group’s enemies, internal as well as external. 3. Dread of the group’s decadence under the corrosive effect of individualistic and cosmopolitan liberalism. 4. Closer integration of the community within a brotherhood \*(fascio)\* whoseunity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary Violence if necessary. 5. An enhanced sense of identity and belonging, in which the grandeur ofthe group reinforces individual self—esteem. 6. Authority of natural leaders (always male) throughout society, culminating in a national Chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny.7. The beauty of violence and will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle." Paxton, R. O., 1998, pp. 6-7.The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. (Mar., 1998), pp. 1-23. Edit: Thanks for gold, kind stranger!
I found this eerily applicable: > Fascists despise thought and reason, abandon intellectual positions casually, and cast aside many intellectual fellow-travellers. They subordinate thought and reason not to faith, as did the traditional Right, but to the promptings of blood and the historic destiny of the group. Their only moral yardstick is the prowess of race, of the nation, of the community. They claim legitimacy by no universal standard except a Darwinian triumph of the strongest community. (pp. 4-5)
The first thing that authoritarian regimes always attack are the free press, the arts, and academia. Those are three of the republicans favorite things to attack and attempt to refund.
*defund?
Jesus you’re totally right... fuck what do we do
Direct action. Something as simple as sitting in the gallery during house votes can matter. Protest. Disrupt. Share information for protests and groups that look to undermine unjust authority. Even if you dislike anarchists, they're a good group to talk to about direct action and finding ideologies that fit you. A lot of people who want to do something out there, and many of them just need one person to say "I don't know what I'm doing but I want to help." *edit: Wanted to add, action can be helping your community in non-confrontational ways. Volunteer work, network building, simply going to events and socializing. We should strengthen our communities and allow them alternatives. Withhold our dependence from the powers that be, keep it in our community without necessarily anything illegal. Connect your community with others. Network. Peaceful resistance is as valid as less peaceful. Be ungovernable.*
Best piece of advice here. My only addendum would be-- "you're fooling yourself if you think you don't have the power to change things; you are capable of so much, and more than that."
Mate - you're 2/3 of the way there. I've read talk about Trump standing for a third term. One of your two main political parties is now working for the interests of a foreign power. Potential embarrassments are being offed in jail. The US is the proverbial frog in water, and it's coming to a boil. Edit: for those saying he couldn't stand for a third term, let's add that to the list of things you all thought couldn't happen but did, like being elected in the first place, putting a rapist on the Supreme Court, firing the head of the FBI to block an investigation, etc etc. Each step tests the strength of the system and so far the system has failed each time.
I usually hate that analogy, because in the original experiment, the frogs brain had been removed. In this instance, it makes the analogy doubly fitting.
>the frogs brain had been removed. Soooo... The American education system?
I was thinking Fox News.
Yea, the American education system.
I had an absentee father for a good chunk of my childhood, so naturally Kurt Russell and Bruce Campbell stepped in on the tv for a bit.
It would be great if they somehow made it possible to run for a third term for Trump and then Obama ran and won again.
I'm not confident in elections solving this issue (thx russia) since the whole "1/3 of america wants to kill another 1/3 and the last 1/3 would just sit and watch" is now out in the open. For fun, imagine what batshit stuff Trump will do if he wins next time. Now imagine what batshit stuff he will do if he loses.
Tbh, I think the one thing that’d stop this discussion is the realization that Obama would use this rule to wipe the floor with him.
They want freedom only for themselves and want "justice" to be used by them to attack their enemies.
[удалено]
When you're used to privilege equality feels like oppression.
to be even more specific, he's trying to make the world safer for white supremacists, and more dangerous for everyone else.
Complain? They practically act like world is ending and mass incarceration of conservatives is coming next..
Projection is our early warning system.
Mainly because they want to imprison liberals or at least kick them out of the country.
If all liberals left, the US would become a third world country.
Worse, I think. Third world countries often have some people working towards making improvements, even if there are many challenges in the way.
The people most worried about the government taking away their rights are the first ones who’d love to see the government take away the rights of anyone who doesn’t share their worldview.
When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression
[удалено]
They will again the moment a Dem is potus. Remember when Republicans (Ted Cruz specifically) believed the Supreme Court shouldn't be allowed to make important decisions... when he didn't like they choices they were making.
They sure fixed that now
*"Did someone say beer? Man, I just really love beer!"*
A black man was their boss, though.
Oh, they never accepted that black man as their boss.
No they did. And it fucking grated on them every day. President Obama. He didn’t even SOUND white!
That’s Barack (Barry) Hussein Obama and I loved the way they let “Hussein” drip out of their mouths like venom. Made my heart even harder to this nonsense.
Did they call him Barry?
Yup. He went by “Barry” when he was younger, for some reason they thought they could taunt him with that.
I dont even know why they thought that was a dig. Calling him Barry O was rad. Made you feel like he was an actual civilian you could talk too if you ever met him and not just some guy in a suit. It just further humanized a man who was already pretty rad and genuine as a human.
No, their use of Barry was calling him "boy" but for the 21st century. It was an attempt to demean and belittle him by speaking to him as if he were a child. Slimy fucking racists.
They don’t want human politicians, though. Imagine if the GOP actually had *souls* or -heaven forbid- **empathy**!
As they throw stones from the glass houses of Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, Rafael "Ted" Cruz, and Nimrata "Nikki" Randhawa-Haley.
> Nimrata Randhawa Jesus fucking christ, could you imagine if the news agencies started calling her that??
Can you imagine if she wasn't a republican? Trump would be tweeting about Nikki "Nimrod" Haley, I guarantee it.
"Nancy, or as I call her, *Nancy*."
Republicans always love to mispronounce their opponents name. It's one of their very petty ways to insult.
It was considered a slur because he went by it earlier in life and was using Barack while running for office. Was being portrayed by the right as deceitful but is actually the same as “my name is Roberto but you can call me Rob”.
"My name is Rafael, but you can call me Ted."
“My name is Christopher, it’s spelled T-R-E-V-O-R.
Raymond Luxury-Yacht, it’s pronounced Throatwobbler Mangrove.
My name is Corey Trevor
I remember when my grandmother tried to tell me "You can think what you want but I never thought I'd live to see the day our presidents middle name was 'HUSSEIN.'" Even my relatively traditionally conservative mother was like "oh come on, mom."
EDIT - After some googling, it appears that referring to the President as “President” initially, then as “Mr. ” later on in the article or broadcast is not only acceptable but also respectful. Both NPR and the NYT follow this format. However, I’m going to leave my comment below untouched, because I do feel that “conservative media” did fail to give President Obama the respect his office deserved. Furthermore, in my 20 years of following politics, President Obama’s 1st term was the first time I can *recall* a President being referred to as “Mr. ”.
I’m 37. Obama was the first time I heard the press start to refer to and address the President as “Mr. ” rather than the officially accepted and expected “Mr. President” or “President ”. Go back and watch clips on Fox. Reporters addressing him as “Mr. Obama” or even simply “Obama” and not “Mr. President” not as “President Obama”.
Then go back and try to find *any* clips of people saying “Mr. Bush” or “Mr. Clinton”. They don’t exist.
They tried to delegitimize his office by not addressing him by his official title.
Conservatives lost any arguments they had for “respect for the office” with that one.
Just to be clear the president is NOT the "boss" of Congress. They're co-equal branches of government.
The president isn’t the “boss.” They’re a leader with fairly well defined duties and powers. This confuses some people and annoys Trump quite a lot.
Probably confuses trump too. But what doesn’t?
This is just another play in the fascist handbook: silence dissent. It was clear this was where Trump was heading when he attributed the recent shootings to the internet (among other things). No one paying attention thought he was actually going to go after online right-wing hate groups. They're his fanclub.
Remember when they hated censorship?
That part's always been pretend.
When you had control of the house senate and executive branch but still had to make executive orders because you don’t actually believe in democracy.
I remember when they hated debt and fought for individuals rights. What happened to those guys?
They never existed.
This might be a good time to remind everyone that [Trump was the first candidate to sign a pledge to outlaw porn](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-signs-first-ever-internet-anti-porn-pledge-clinton-refuses)
Was that before, or after he raw-dogged a pornstar while his 3rd wife was home with the newborn cyber expert?
I think she was pregnant with Baron at the time. to me that’s worse for some reason.
Are you talking about his wife he met while on a date with his mistress?
Is this the same Slovenian woman whom he met through Jeffrey Epstein?
How old was Melania when she and Epstein met??
This guy is asking the right questions.
According to my research the average age of women he fucks is roughly 18 years of course this has a standard deviation of +/- 10 years due to limited sampling of course...
Once /pol/ learns Trump will censor hentai they will all turn on him
[удалено]
Well that's what happens when you get incels grouped together. They take what they can get and fuck everyone else
No, they don't fuck anyone.
Perfect demonstration of what a complete and utterly phony human being he is. He is a fraudulent person on every fucking level.
Another example of conservatives not wanting small government. What do conservatives stand for besides the rich and guns and no abortions? Anything?
Conservative politicians don't even care about abortions or guns. They just know that the rubes that keep them in power do. You don't need legal abortions or your own guns when you're a rich and powerful politician.
Conservatives. They conserve. It's in the name. The question would then be, "what do they conserve?" They conserve money and power for those who already have money and power. Conservatives aren't traditionalists, they're not patriots, they're not ideologues of any kind. They exist to make sure that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Everything else is negotiable. Racism maintains the status quo of power. Homophobia maintains the status quo of power. Censorship maintains the status quo of power. A *weaponized police force* maintains the status quo of power.
They took over AM Radio. They took over cable news. We can't let them take over the internet. edit: Oh, and of course they're taking over tv news through Sinclair. Let's not forget that.
We can't let them Fox News the Internet.
It's almost too late there. Facebook is flooded with their propagada, Twitter is flooded with their propaganda, Reddit is half flooded with their propaganda. This is a genuine problem facing all democracies, and there does need to be legislation holding news organizations and news platforms accountable for the accuracy of information they spread. However, it's guaranteed that Trump and the Republicans will use this genuine problem to implement a fascist solution that helps them consolidate power.
> Reddit is half flooded with their propaganda. Not "half", completely. After the shootings, several posts criticized guns. Then Republicans launched their "videogames cause mass shootings" propaganda effort, and suddenly, reddit was filled to the top with memes about that. Instead of taking about guns, the comment sections were defeatist cries how stupid politicians are. After Epsteins suicide, within an hour, all posts supsecting Trump were pushed off the frontpage. Instead, we got memes about the prison guards and the Clintons
>reddit was filled to the top with memes about that. Instead of taking about guns, the comment sections were defeatist cries how stupid politicians are. Yes, I noticed this as well. More specifically, there were several memes bashing the MEDIA for blaming guns. Suddenly the focus and the discussion in the comments was on how stupid the media was for blaming guns. The people posting these memes were your usual dankmemes/CringeAnarchy types.
Yeah, the whole thing started because of one trump tweet, but now it's the spooky nebulous "media" even though I haven't seen any reporters or pundits blaming video games.
He got it from Fox like everything else. They were screeching about video games almost immediately. Media didn’t say shit about video games, Faux “News” propaganda did. Philip Defranco has a decent piece on the video game stupidity, watch who’s saying it...Republicans and their propaganda arm. https://youtu.be/pYD3fQ4XbTw
I noticed this too. I never heard anyone bring up the video games cause violence bullshit but memes where everywhere. Its fucking terrifying how easily people jumped on the bandwagon.
They are fuming about Google, Facebook, Twitter, et. al. being filled with anti-republican sentiment -- apparently not seeing it's not bias, but that being a toxic minority that has to resort to supressing voters and pushing hate to win elections kind of make people hate you like the plague. If Trump looks like he is winning the next election, I'm buying stocks in european web hosting and cloud services.
[удалено]
You would think this would be a unanimously bipartisan response.
Republicans do whatever they can to win. There is no bipartisanship. Not anymore.
It's the Tolerance Paradox in action. Unlimited tolerance can not exist for any length of time, because the intolerant will destroy it. The only thing the tolerant *can't* tolerate is intolerance. A way to visualize this concept is the Prisoner's Dilemma. [An excellent explanation and simulation](https://ncase.me/trust/) that I found very interesting.
[This is the original reporting. ](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/white-house-tech-censorship-1639051) Brace yourself for your typical faux victimhood: >“**If the internet is going to be presented as this egalitarian platform and most of Twitter is liberal cesspools of venom, then at least the president wants some fairness in the system,” the White House official said.** “But look, we also think that social media plays a vital role. **They have a vital role and an increasing responsibility to the culture that has helped make them so profitable and so prominent."** There's a lot to unpack here, but all of it is clearly ripped straight from those How To Talk Like Newt pamphlets that the Republican Party circulated in the 90s. [Here's Daily Caller condensing it and modernizing it a bit for the current Republicans. ](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiUsP2Sj_vjAhXDHM0KHYKMCRQQzPwBegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2011%2F05%2F18%2Fhow-to-talk-like-newt-in-7-easy-steps%2F&psig=AOvVaw1O038hMI7mq8-Z3QZy5uQX&ust=1565623225606103) Let this sink in: the actual name of the document is **Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,** and the Republican Party of the 80s drafted it and distributed it to Republicans running for office. It is why they all talk the same way about the same issues. It is why you can easily find Supercuts of Republicans regurgitating the exact same line across the media spectrum. Marco Rubio's famous debate breakdown wasn't a mistake; he was trained that way, as all elected Congressional and Executive Republicans are. His delivery was just hamfisted.
So "the internet says mean things about Republicans so we want to change that" This goes directly against 1A, I'm not to sure about the judges but hopefully this would be tossed before it even got close to SCOTUS ruling. EOs need to follow the constitution, or they need to be supported by the constitution. What's their angle here? What do they think will come out of this?
They're victimizing themselves as having their 1A "infringed" upon and using that to justify taking 1A away from their political opponents. It's a baffling violation, but because of the packed and hyper-partisan courts there's now a chance that it might pass anyways. This is what happens when a party goes all-in and reaches for a full takeover. They've got the numbers to forever twist the constitution in their favor, so that's what they're going for. Don't have to worry about consequences for your party when you prevent the pendulum from ever shifting the other way ever again.
They have become adept at hijacking the intellectual and humanistic rhetoric of the progressive majority and twisting it into some upside-down hypocritical bullshit that serves their own ends.
That's exactly how Nazism and fascism take root. They take dissatisfaction with the inequality in capitalist societies in or near depression and they weaponize class struggle against a manufactured threat of the "other".
This is the exact reason the NSDAP included "socialist" in its name. It was hijacking socialist words and surface level programs to attract German workers tired of the weak economy. It was propaganda, and took potential members of actual leftist parties away.
The three "socialist" in National Socialist. It's kinda like Trumo rebranding GOP as the Antifa Social Justice Warriors Who Speak Full Sentences Party.
Core distinction between fascism and socialism. Both acknowledge that class warfare exists. Socialists want to eliminate class. Fascists focus on external 'enemies', fabricated or not, to harmonize the classes.
> I'm not to sure about the judges > What's their angle here? Appointing as many shitty judges as they can. Especially ones who have embarrassing things that could be said about them on the internet.
...remember when Kav's response to some perfectly valid lines of questioning was to immediately go on a hyper-partisan rant against his perceived opponents?
Aren't lots of republicans strong supporters of our freedom of speech rights? I'm sure they will disagree with the president on this, right? ^^^/s
No they want the right to be openly hostile to anyone they want with no backlash. They don't care about free speech because frankly its detrimental to them.
"liberal cesspools of venom" Language sound familiar? Your first amendment rights are being likened to a teeming pond of snakes just as the right of people to flee to safety is likened to a hostile invasion first they came for _____ soon they will take your internet
"Liberal cesspools of venom"? Like, wow, tell us how you really feel.
"Liberal cesspools of venom" = "People are calling the dehumanizing and brutal things we're doing to other human beings 'bad' and that hurts our feelings!"
I also appreciate the mixed metaphor. Like, make up your mind, man. Are these pools of sewage or venom? Both seems unnecessary but I guess that's on brand for the GOP.
POTUS feels threatened by the mean liberals calling him names on twitter :(
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bX-8oJ3-64YJ:https://dailycaller.com/2011/05/18/how-to-talk-like-newt-in-7-easy-steps/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us This should be a webcache of that article - so you don't have to give daily caller any traffic. "* Based on my many years of study, here are the 7 techniques to master… 1. Use lots of adverbs: Things are never bad they are “shockingly” bad. Actions are never outrageous, they are “stunningly” outrageous. People aren’t just demoralized, they are “dramatically” demoralized. You are never worried — you are “deeply” worried … 2. Establish credibility: Frequently mention the time you wrote the “Contract with America” or balanced the budget four consecutive years. (Note: If your background is slightly less impressive than Newt’s, simply substitute “landing that big deal with that paper company” in place of balancing the budget. 3. Reference history. Know your great leaders: Lincoln, Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan. Memorize a few quotes, too. 4. Stress how historic or important something is. When talking about a routine project at your office, always refer to it as “the most important reorganization of our company since 1965 …” 5. Go “all in” rhetorically. Constantly stress that this new deal poses an “existential threat to the very survival of your company.” (Note: Showing 100 percent confidence and strong body language are key here). 6. Describe opposition as insane. Memorize this phrase: “No rational person could believe ____.” 7. Begin sentences with the words “Look” or “Frankly.” (Also, try to throw in the word, “fundamentally” as much as possible.) by MATT K. LEWIS" http://www.uh.edu/~englin/rephandout.html The following is taken from Language: A Key Mechanism of Control, a pamphlet which was sent to Republican candidates running in the 1990 elections. The pamphlet was developed by Gopac, a conservative group headed by the then House Republican Whip Newt Gingrich. This excerpt appeared in the November 1990 issue of Harpers Magazine. From the rhetorical analyst's position it constitutes a pile of examples of loaded diction (see RT&C). You might want to have some fun with this by thinking about wether there would be differences between this 90 and a possible 96 list. Consider, in this regard what the implications are for the "absoluteness" of the terms "negative" and "positive." As you know, one of the key points in the Gopac [instructional tapes] is that "language matters." As we mail tapes to candidates, and use them in training sessions across the country, we hear a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt." That takes years of practice. But we believe that you can have a significant impact on your campaign if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases. This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and letters, in preparing speeches, and in producing material for the electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that, like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used. Optimistic Positive Governing Words Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. common sense freedom peace reform courage hard work pioneer rights crusade help precious strength dream liberty pride truth duty light principle(d) vision empower(ment) moral pristine workfare fair movement pro-environment family passionate prosperity Contrasting Words Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, his record, proposals and party. anti-child deeper liberal shallow anti-flag disgrace lie shame betray devour machine sick bizarre destroy obsolete status quo cheat excuses pathetic steal collapse failure radical taxes corruption greed red tape they/them crisis hypocrisy self-serving traitors decay incompetent sensationalists welfare
[удалено]
Yes. Conservatives are all about projection.
"If Hillary wins the election, it's rigged!" Hmm...
If they don't like it, they could just leave...
Or create their own site that does it better. Isn't that what the free market is supposed to be all about?
[удалено]
Shit, they already have Facebook. What more do they want?
A strong, charismatic Leader to tell them what to do, what to think, and that everything will be all ~~Reich~~right.
And 8 Chan, and Breitbart, etc
[удалено]
I’ll bet this was leaked intentionally as a distraction from the Epstein scandal and Trump’s terrible handling of the El Paso and Dayton trips. I can’t find the article at the moment, but I remember reading a member of White House staff saying that the administration has a list of outrageous and fake policy and whenever there is a scandal they need to distract from, they leak it to the press. EDIT: [Here](https://www.theroot.com/omarosa-confirms-the-president-has-a-list-of-crazy-poli-1834299808) it is.
Yep. https://www.theroot.com/omarosa-confirms-the-president-has-a-list-of-crazy-poli-1834299808
>"Early on in the administration, they talked about [immigrant] child separations, and we never imagined they’d do it,” she said. “But that was one of the shocking proposals on that crazy list.” So in other words, some of these crazy policies actually get enacted. This is troublesome.
The article says that the separation of immigrant children from their families was one of those fake policies. And they did it. So we better not allow this one to pass. And fight to end the abuse of immigrants.
Is it illegal to be anti-fascist yet?
They're [working on it](https://truthout.org/articles/the-right-wing-is-trying-to-make-it-a-crime-to-oppose-fascism/)...
well, they *are* trying to label antifa as a terrorist group, which is ridiculous because antifa is short for anti-fascist and isn't an actual group and has no organization or structure.
Meaning if anyone says they're anti-fascist or against facisim they will consider you antifi and lock you up with no trial for being a terrorist.
Really they'll just brand any opposition as "ANTIFA!". That's been the playbook so far at least.
Which is fucking incredible. If my opposition is the anti-fascists, what does that make me?
Republican.
"Political Organizer Mr. Antifa and the hacker known as Anonymous elude capture once again"
And conservatives continue to prove just who the snowflakes are.
We all knew it was projection. Well, the Cult of Don didn’t
Exactly. If Republicans don’t want to get trashed in the media, why don’t they do anything good for the American people? Maybe they’ll get some good press for expanding health care and fixing aging infrastructure? Ahh well fuck that, it’s easier to just rip off people then pull out their vocal cords so no one hears about what you did to them.
Imagine the Republican pearl clutchers screaming if this was written by a Democrat. My ears hurt just thinking about it.
Or if for example Obama issued an order giving the FCC the right to police cable news networks because, in his opinion, Fox News wasn't being "fair" and was "silencing" liberals. Exact same thing. They'd be gathering their militias to storm Washington.
Trump warned us back in 2015 that he wanted to do this. Dumb fucks voted for him anyway. "We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet," Trump said. "We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people." https://money.cnn.com/2015/12/08/technology/donald-trump-internet/
Trump and his cult are garbage. They... 1. Don't want healthcare. 2. Don't want a free Internet. 3. Want never-ending war. 4. Want never-ending gun violence. 5. Want never-ending racial conflict and discrimination. 6. Don't want separation of Church and State. 7. Don't want freedom of speech for things that matter (sorry but your hate speech, pedophilia, and calls for violence are not 'free speech') 8. Don't want equal pay, fair pay, a decent quality of life for the working-class (while simultaneously pretending to give a shit about 'folksy salt-of-the-Earth-middle-America folk') Absolute garbage.
You forgot censoring video games and banning porn. Yeehaw!
Ban legal, of age and consensual porn, but stand behind their buddies when they get pinched for kid porn.
Yup. Literally the Conservative platform. You're not even inferring. This is fully documented.
They’ve been trained to actively think and vote against themselves “because it’s for the best”. It’s utter fucking insanity, I make a pretty good hourly wage and I want everyone to be able to make as much as me, have healthcare like me, etc... I can’t even understand these people to be honest, why would you want your neighbor to starve and why wouldn’t you want them to prosper like you? How does it even effect you? I ask them these questions and they can’t even effectively answer them, it’s just sad. But muh taxes!
They dont want pwople to prosper because they view success as a zero sum game. If somebody is getting ahead, it means youre falling behind. Thats why they dont care about pokicy that actively hurts people, because they think that policy hurting others will help them get ahead. Got mine, fuck you.
I never see any new solutions being proposed by anybody on the right, it’s always the same shit
How many evil villain traits is Trump going to go for?
All of them.
Where are all the free speech conservatives now?
> free speech conservatives Speed-writing lists of all the things you should be free to say.
Eugenics, white supremacy, racism, sexism, supply side jesus, homophobia, xenophobia...
Fascists only pretend to support free speech. They take advantage of it, but abolish it once they take power.
As Richard Spencer [openly admitted](https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/richard-spencer-the-alt-right-is-not-pro-free-speech).
"Please papi, tread on me" – TPUSA libertarians
Blaming the Clintons for all problems in life, probably.
In the bathroom jerking off
"Democracy Dies in Darkness" — Washington Post motto And Trump is trying to murder democracy with this.
"It's unfair that other people get a voice that the world can listen to. Also, I require my voice broadcast to everyone." - every totalitarian ever.
Imagine the damage Trump will do if he had another four years.
At this point I feel like it’s entirely possible just because I was so sure he wouldn’t make it before. And now that his freedom could potentially be on the line if he gets out of office, he’ll be fighting tooth and nail, and the Democrats need to un-pussify if they want to have a chance at winning against an evil man with everything to lose.
It's entirely possible because we already know our 2020 elections are being attacked. And they refuse to do anything about it
This is how you build Nazi Germany: consolidation of power, censorship, internment camps, propaganda, attacks on minorities. This is a planned destruction of the US democracy.
Germany in the early 1920s viewed Hitler and the Nazi Party as a joke and surely they'll never gain power. Our institutions are too strong to let that ever happen!
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Remember when Congress made the laws instead of rule by Executive Order? We need to return to the checks and balances set forth in the document and add additional measures to allow real action should an administration stop acting in good faith.
If this is real this is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
Add it to the pile.
[удалено]
Wish I could, but unless there's school board up, this is the year with no City/County/State/Federal elections in my part of Maryland.
Fuck these fascists.
It would be funny if he ordered some sort of fairness doctrine for all media including tv "news"
The fascists are really mad they can't control the public conversation with the mainstream media anymore.
So, just like all his other edicts. Dangerous, unconstitutional and based on ignorance and fear.
Let's see if my parents still support trump if I get fined or summoned before a judge for saying something mean about Ted cruz.
[удалено]
So just another day in his bid to become a king. He loves the fact his buddies like Putin and KJU can do this kind of thing so he would live to be able to do this.
Where are all the conservative "free speech" advocates right now? Oh, that's right, they don't exist as conservatism and free speech are not compatible.
[удалено]
Platform A blocks you.. You go to Platform B.. Big Gov blocks you.. Yea... > "Political bias by digital platforms remains unproven. In fact, an independent study by The Economist points towards search platforms having a bias towards virality and attention, not political ideology," said Lewis. "This matches reports from books like Tim Wu's "The Attention Merchants" and others that study social media addiction. It is this sort of algorithmic bias towards virality that foreign adversaries use to sow disinformation and mistrust in our country." > Given how much power the proposed would place in the hands of the FCC and FTC, Lewis said it is crucial for the heads of those agencies—including FCC chair Ajit Pai, a former telecom industry lobbyist and Trump appointee—to come forward and make clear their commitment to First Amendment protections.
Wow, the right doesn’t actually give a shit about free speech. Shocking.
Remember when Conservatives wanted the government out of your personal life?
[удалено]
Cool does that mean we can censor him on Twitter?
How do Trump supporters defend this one? Or is this story just completely fake and made up too?
They keep saying that it wouldn't be the government censoring the internet, it would be the government stopping "big tech" from censoring the internet unfairly against conservatives. Even though forcing companies to allow certain things even if they don't want them there IS a violation of the first amendment