A Vote for Kamala Is a Vote for Tyranny

[ideologyhunter]

By not voting, I'd help Trump, which is like promoting ebola virus.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I get it, you want to vote for freedom and the continuation of America's proud tradition of liberty and participatory democracy. God knows, Trump is your man. A great American.

"Then I have Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President." (7/23/19, Turning Point USA Conference)

"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude <i.e., his stolen 'landslide' victory in 2020> allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution." (12/3/22, in a tweet)

"We will root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country."
Trump rally, Veterans Day 2023

I've said this before but you did not notice. You do not have to vote for either Trump or Harris. It is still your right to either stay home or write the person you want.

And how exactly would not voting fend off tyranny? Please explain.

Sounds more like succumbing to it.

 

[laughing dog]

I live in a practical world not a theoretically ideal one.

The practical world is headed for tyranny right now.

Please explain how supporting a candidate who brags about being a dictator (just for a “day”), and who supports restricting access to a legal medical practice is fighting the creep if tyranny?

It seems to me that you and PCR think policies that you favor or that don’t affect you personally are not tyranny.

 

[RVonse]

Apparently, there are a lot of lies about what Kamala Harris has said. For example:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harris-trump-supporters-vengeance/

"And once Trump's gone and we have regained our rightful place in the White House, look out if you supported him and endorsed his actions because we'll be coming for you next. You will feel the vengeance of a nation. No stone will be left unturned as we seek you out in this great nation. For it is you that betrayed us."

-Kamala Harris, June 18, 2020

No, she. never said that.....

However, Kamala Harris never said this — the quote is not real. Snopes investigated the origin of the quote in 2019, and concluded that it originated from a website that labeled its output as satire, bustatroll.org. The website (now offline) was a part of America's Last Line of Defense, a still-active network of "satirical" news sites and social media pages.

A 2020 fact-check from the Associated Press investigating the quote included a confirmation from Harris' communications director at the time, Chris Harris, that the quote was fake.

It's sad that some people are so naive that they believe all kinds of bullshit that is put out by insane, disgusting people like Musk and Trump, to name a couple of the biggest liars around.

To be honest, that fake quote sounds more like something that Trump has said in the past.

Musk has censored lots of speech, despite his claims that he supports total free speech. Free speech can be denied by private organizations, but don't claim you will allow free speech on X and then deny it when you feel like it.

Are you claiming the video I provided is an AI generated fake?

I don't know, but I didn't get the impression she was going to ban anything. She said she thought that some of these large social media sites needed to be regulated. The video was taken out of context, like the far righties like to do. There is so much shit and lies on social media, don't you think that's a good idea to have some regulations?

I'm old enough to remember when news media was regulated a lot. These days we have stations like Fox and Newsmax that can tell lies without giving the other side a chance to respond. AT least the NYTImes and WaPo have editorials from both sides, unlike some of the far right papers I've looked at out of curiosity.

I'm not sure what the solution is either because I want free speech and not tyranny. The people who seem to have the best ideas IMO say that we should encourage more speech in order to put down bad ideas better.

And I do believe it was better in the old days when there was regulation to provide both sides of an argument.

But what Harris says in her interview government taking down a social site is horrible IMO. That is the exact opposite of providing more free speech.

 

[pood]

Looks like the whole thing is a lie. What a surprise.

 

[RVonse]

I live in a practical world not a theoretically ideal one.

The practical world is headed for tyranny right now.

Please explain how supporting a candidate who brags about being a dictator (just for a “day”), and who supports restricting access to a legal medical practice is fighting the creep if tyranny?

It seems to me that you and PCR think policies that you favor or that don’t affect you personally are not tyranny.

I've said it twice but now I'll say it three times in this thread that I only started an hour ago. You don't have to vote for either Trump or Harris. That is still your right that they have not taken away yet.

 

[RVonse]

Sounds more like succumbing to it.

There aren't very many good options for any of us right now. That is probably one thing we can both agree.

 

[RVonse]

Looks like the whole thing is a lie. What a surprise.

That gives us more credibility to the X site for taking down bad content. Actually it looks your link is to a redit post that was taken down not my X site post. So I do not even know what that was about. The video I posted is still valid as far as I know.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I live in a practical world not a theoretically ideal one.

The practical world is headed for tyranny right now.

Please explain how supporting a candidate who brags about being a dictator (just for a “day”), and who supports restricting access to a legal medical practice is fighting the creep if tyranny?

It seems to me that you and PCR think policies that you favor or that don’t affect you personally are not tyranny.

I've said it twice but now I'll say it three times in this thread that I only started an hour ago. You don't have to vote for either Trump or Harris. That is still your right that they have not taken away yet.

Yes you have said it twice but you have said zero times how exactly that would be a meaningful action. We can always stick our heads in the sand if we don’t like seeing the world around us. Why exercise a right that has no meaningful outcome from its exercise? And if anyone is going to take away the right to vote it is Trump and the Republicans.

 

[laughing dog]

I live in a practical world not a theoretically ideal one.

The practical world is headed for tyranny right now.

Please explain how supporting a candidate who brags about being a dictator (just for a “day”), and who supports restricting access to a legal medical practice is fighting the creep if tyranny?

It seems to me that you and PCR think policies that you favor or that don’t affect you personally are not tyranny.

I've said it twice but now I'll say it three times in this thread that I only started an hour ago. You don't have to vote for either Trump or Harris. That is still your right that they have not taken away yet.

So your solution to the march of tyranny is to sit back and whine. Abstracting from this is the advice of the blowhard crackpot PCR, why should anyone take such a pointless solution seiously?

 

[Rhea]

But it's okay when Musk does it?

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is pushing for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Elon Musk’s X improperly prevented users from following an official presidential campaign account for Vice President Kamala Harris on Sunday.

Nadler, the ranking Democrat on the committee, sent a letter to chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Monday morning saying that “numerous users” were blocked from following the “@KamalaHQ” account after President Joe Biden stepped aside and endorsed Harris for president. The letter was exclusively obtained by NBC News.

“Regardless of political ideology, Americans have a protected interest in receiving Vice President Harris’ communications regarding her candidacy,” Nadler wrote. “Vice President Harris, in turn, has a right to communicate with the American people as she runs for the highest office in the country.”

This is what prompted Harris' quip. So take your free speech bullshit and sell it somewhere else.

So both sides are censoring? Would it not make more sense to ensure neither side censoring than to try and make an argument one side was better? If we don't want our speech censored, then that's what we should be arguing for.

That at least sounds a LOT more democratic than saying you want to "take down" one site or the other.

No, darling, both sides are not censioring, as is clearly evident from the posts you are quoting. One side (Musk) is censoring, and the other is telling him to stop it.


It’s so interesting you can look at those posts and make that conclusion.

You did not hear about Mark Zuckerberg just admitting otherwise?

Why are you bringing up Zuckerberg in a conversation about Musk and Harris?

Is it because you do not want to address the clear fact that
“One side (Musk) is censoring, and the other (Harris) is telling him to stop it.”
And by censoring I mean the anti-freedom practice of preventing subscribers from seeing the content they paid to see.

So you try to dodge and bring up a new topic in the hopes that no one notices you failed to address the previous one?

 

[Rhea]

Please explain how supporting a candidate who brags about being a dictator (just for a “day”), and who supports restricting access to a legal medical practice is fighting the creep if tyranny?

It seems to me that you and PCR think policies that you favor or that don’t affect you personally are not tyranny.

I've said it twice but now I'll say it three times in this thread that I only started an hour ago. You don't have to vote for either Trump or Harris. That is still your right that they have not taken away yet.

No one was talking aboiut their “right” to vote. They were talking about how one’s voting choice leads to or fights against tyranny.

Are you trying to change the subject on purpose, or do you actually not realize you are running away from a question?

 

[RVonse]

But it's okay when Musk does it?

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is pushing for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Elon Musk’s X improperly prevented users from following an official presidential campaign account for Vice President Kamala Harris on Sunday.

Nadler, the ranking Democrat on the committee, sent a letter to chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Monday morning saying that “numerous users” were blocked from following the “@KamalaHQ” account after President Joe Biden stepped aside and endorsed Harris for president. The letter was exclusively obtained by NBC News.

“Regardless of political ideology, Americans have a protected interest in receiving Vice President Harris’ communications regarding her candidacy,” Nadler wrote. “Vice President Harris, in turn, has a right to communicate with the American people as she runs for the highest office in the country.”

This is what prompted Harris' quip. So take your free speech bullshit and sell it somewhere else.

So both sides are censoring? Would it not make more sense to ensure neither side censoring than to try and make an argument one side was better? If we don't want our speech censored, then that's what we should be arguing for.

That at least sounds a LOT more democratic than saying you want to "take down" one site or the other.

No, darling, both sides are not censioring, as is clearly evident from the posts you are quoting. One side (Musk) is censoring, and the other is telling him to stop it.


It’s so interesting you can look at those posts and make that conclusion.

You did not hear about Mark Zuckerberg just admitting otherwise?

Why are you bringing up Zuckerberg in a conversation about Musk and Harris?

Is it because you do not want to address the clear fact that
“One side (Musk) is censoring, and the other (Harris) is telling him to stop it.”
And by censoring I mean the anti-freedom practice of preventing subscribers from seeing the content they paid to see.

So you try to dodge and bring up a new topic in the hopes that no one notices you failed to address the previous one?

Zuckerberg has everything to do with censoring free speech. Because Zuckerberg just admitted he censored posts on Facebook because Biden asked him to do it. And now he is feeling guilty about it. This is the same exact problem Harris is accusing Musk of.

If Harris wants to treat them all the same way she will have to "take down" Facebook too I guess.

Hell, why not just "take them all down" so we can have the Kamela social network to make our posts on.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Is there a source for Kamala's quote other than a heavily biased conservative website? Guessing not.

 

[RVonse]

Please explain how supporting a candidate who brags about being a dictator (just for a “day”), and who supports restricting access to a legal medical practice is fighting the creep if tyranny?

It seems to me that you and PCR think policies that you favor or that don’t affect you personally are not tyranny.

I've said it twice but now I'll say it three times in this thread that I only started an hour ago. You don't have to vote for either Trump or Harris. That is still your right that they have not taken away yet.

No one was talking aboiut their “right” to vote. They were talking about how one’s voting choice leads to or fights against tyranny.

Are you trying to change the subject on purpose, or do you actually not realize you are running away from a question?

If enough people vote for RFK jr., RFK will win the election. AFAIK, RFK jr has never campaigned about taking any more rights from the American people. So there is still a non zero chance of RFK jr winning if enough sheep have the balls to vote for him.

 

[RVonse]

Is there a source for Kamala's quote other than a heavily biased conservative website? Guessing not.

Her entire interview was broadcast on CNN I believe.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Hell, why not just "take them all down" so we can have the Kamela social network to make our posts on.

actually, it’s Trump who set up his own social network. Any evidence that Harris has interest in that?

It’s more clear to me that Trump is the one who hates truth and journalism and would rather we all postpone his own network.

Everything you claim that Harris wants is actually things that Trump has either said he wants or has already done.

Maybe you’ve just got the names confused?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Is there a source for Kamala's quote other than a heavily biased conservative website? Guessing not.

Her entire interview was broadcast on CNN I believe.

Cool. Can you, you know, source it?

 

[Shadowy Man]

If enough people vote for RFK jr., RFK will win the election. AFAIK, RFK jr has never campaigned about taking any more rights from the American people. And there is still a non zero chance of that happening.

you mean the man who just dropped out of the race and endorsed Trump? We are supposed to vote for him to protect against tyranny? Nothing you’ve said on this thread makes sense to me.

 

[RVonse]

If enough people vote for RFK jr., RFK will win the election. AFAIK, RFK jr has never campaigned about taking any more rights from the American people. And there is still a non zero chance of that happening.

you mean the man who just dropped out of the race and endorsed Trump? We are supposed to vote for him to protect against tyranny? Nothing you’ve said on this thread makes sense to me.

Then write in your choice. In my case that would probably be someone like Tulsi Gabbard. She won't win obviously but I still have done what I feel is my best not to vote for tyranny.

And that's about all we can do at this point.