A Vote for Kamala Is a Vote for Tyranny

[GenesisNemesis]

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.

Pretty much negates your whole idea of "if enough people vote for x person they'll win" if everyone's going to be voting for a different person in this case eh? Abandoned that idea pretty quickly.

 

[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?

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.

Okay, then she should.

Back to whether you are siding with:

1. We (Musk and Zuckerberg) want to censor posts from people who paid to see them. In Musk’s case, prevening some users, but not all, from being able to access an account they want to follow, and Zuckerberg’s case, preventing some posts from being shown at all. (Hint these are not equivalent, but anyway,)
Or
2. Stop that (Harris)

 

[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.

Pretty much negates your whole idea of "if enough people vote for x person they'll win" if everyone's going to be voting for a different person in this case eh? Abandoned that idea pretty quickly.

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.

Okay, then she should.

Back to whether you are siding with:

1. We (Musk and Zuckerberg) want to censor posts from people who paid to see them. In Musk’s case, prevening some users, but not all, from being able to access an account they want to follow, and Zuckerberg’s case, preventing some posts from being shown at all. (Hint these are not equivalent, but anyway,)
Or
2. Stop that (Harris)

Stop what? Stop the censoring? I would agree with that no problem. That's not what she said though. She wants to "take down" the site. That in effect means MORE censoring because then the other side never sees the light of day.

 

[Rhea]

Stop what? Stop the censoring? I would agree with that no problem. That's not what she said though. She wants to "take down" the site. That in effect means MORE censoring because then the other side never sees the light of day.

So closing down a business that is doing unlawful, anti-American things is bad, in your opinion?

Okay. Got it.

 

[Ford]

I stopped reading when I saw that the source is Paul Craig Roberts. He's nuttier than a fruitcake. He makes Jordan Peterson look like a totally sane person. What's next...Lyndon Larouche?

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

I guess if all you want to do is keep your conscious clean and let everyone else decide the path of this country then sure. Why not.? I will vote for myself then. I’m the only one I trust to keep my own best interests in mind. That’s about as effective at stopping tyranny as voting for RFK or Gabbard.

 

[Rhea]

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.

But what will you have done? Do you think it sends a discernable message? Do you think anyone will know that your intent was “against tyranny”? Or will they just as reasonably think that you thought she was sexy and that’s all you care about? Or will they just as reasonably think that

If you want to stop tyranny, you could work to stop the biggest tyranny first, and then when you vanquish tat one, you vote in the next election against the next worst.

I guess if all you want to do is keep your conscious clean and let everyone else decide the path of this country then sure. Why not.? I will vote for myself then. I’m the only one I trust to keep my own best interests in mind. That’s about as effective at stopping tyranny as voting for RFK or Gabbard.

Or, (and I believe you already know this,) it’s worse, because you did not fight against the bigger tyrant, and so you end up further than =you were before, with less power.

 

[jonatha]

tyranny

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means...

 

[jonatha]

I'm old enough to remember when news media was regulated a lot.

That is because it used the public airwaves - a regulated resource - to provide its news.

Cable doesn't do that. It might be argued that the Internet does, at least in part...

 

[laughing dog]

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

Regulating speech is not supporting free speech.

 

[jonatha]

Then write in your choice. In my case that would probably be someone like Tulsi Gabbard.

Please do.

Your vote will not be counted unless Ms. Gabbard has filed a slate of electors with your state's Secretary of State.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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

Regulating speech is not supporting free speech.

All the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are open to regulation. None are absolute.

 

[Toni]

It is a given that a lot of people here do not like what Trump or PCR have to say. But do you really want to live in tyranny? Do you really want to live in the world that existed before the Bill of Rights became written?

and a vote for Trump would not be for tyranny?? Do I really want to live in the world that existed before the entire Constitution became written? Because it’s clear that Trump has zero respect for the Constitution or the laws derived from it. When it’s a binary choice then indeed Harris the lesser of evils despite what she may or may not have said here.

We are supposed to believe that the same man who calls the Press “the enemy of the people” has more respect for the first amendment than Harris? Please…

You don't have to vote for Trump or Harris. That is still your right...until they take that away too.

They, meaning Trump. He’s the one who says
he’ll be a dictator on day 1 and that if you vote for him, you won’t ever have to bother voting again

 

[laughing dog]

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

Regulating speech is not supporting free speech.

All the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are open to regulation. None are absolute.

Yes. But if one approves of “olden day” regulation in the name of free speech then it is seemingly inconsistent to protest in the name of free speech against current attempts at regulation.

 

[Ford]

It is a given that a lot of people here do not like what Trump or PCR have to say. But do you really want to live in tyranny? Do you really want to live in the world that existed before the Bill of Rights became written?

and a vote for Trump would not be for tyranny?? Do I really want to live in the world that existed before the entire Constitution became written? Because it’s clear that Trump has zero respect for the Constitution or the laws derived from it. When it’s a binary choice then indeed Harris the lesser of evils despite what she may or may not have said here.

We are supposed to believe that the same man who calls the Press “the enemy of the people” has more respect for the first amendment than Harris? Please…

You don't have to vote for Trump or Harris. That is still your right...until they take that away too.

They, meaning Trump. He’s the one who says
he’ll be a dictator on day 1 and that if you vote for him, you won’t ever have to bother voting again

Um...hello? RVonse said it over and over again. You don't have to vote for him! So if you don't vote for Trump OR Harris, neither of them will win!

Easy peasy, lemon-squeezy!

 

[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.

Pretty much negates your whole idea of "if enough people vote for x person they'll win" if everyone's going to be voting for a different person in this case eh? Abandoned that idea pretty quickly.

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.

Okay, then she should.

Back to whether you are siding with:

1. We (Musk and Zuckerberg) want to censor posts from people who paid to see them. In Musk’s case, prevening some users, but not all, from being able to access an account they want to follow, and Zuckerberg’s case, preventing some posts from being shown at all. (Hint these are not equivalent, but anyway,)
Or
2. Stop that (Harris)

Stop what? Stop the censoring? I would agree with that no problem. That's not what she said though. She wants to "take down" the site. That in effect means MORE censoring because then the other side never sees the light of day.

It is a given that a lot of people here do not like what Trump or PCR have to say. But do you really want to live in tyranny? Do you really want to live in the world that existed before the Bill of Rights became written?

and a vote for Trump would not be for tyranny?? Do I really want to live in the world that existed before the entire Constitution became written? Because it’s clear that Trump has zero respect for the Constitution or the laws derived from it. When it’s a binary choice then indeed Harris the lesser of evils despite what she may or may not have said here.

We are supposed to believe that the same man who calls the Press “the enemy of the people” has more respect for the first amendment than Harris? Please…

You don't have to vote for Trump or Harris. That is still your right...until they take that away too.

They, meaning Trump. He’s the one who says
he’ll be a dictator on day 1 and that if you vote for him, you won’t ever have to bother voting again

Actually IMHO, I mean Dick Cheney more than any other. He influenced Bush to contribute more to the eventual complete tyranny of the US than any other.

But what Harris proposes is actually even worse. And much worse than Trump. Because despite the things Trump always talked about "throw Clinton in jail for example" he actually never did any of this. Biden actually did what Trump only actually bragged about.

And it seems each progressive president wants to get that much closer to our tyranny.

 

[RVonse]

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

Regulating speech is not supporting free speech.

All the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are open to regulation. None are absolute.

Yes. But if one approves of “olden day” regulation in the name of free speech then it is seemingly inconsistent to protest in the name of free speech against current attempts at regulation.

This is where you and Rhea are incorrect what Harris actually said. She wants to "take down" Musk. That's not regulation, that's tyranny.

 

[RVonse]

It is a given that a lot of people here do not like what Trump or PCR have to say. But do you really want to live in tyranny? Do you really want to live in the world that existed before the Bill of Rights became written?

and a vote for Trump would not be for tyranny?? Do I really want to live in the world that existed before the entire Constitution became written? Because it’s clear that Trump has zero respect for the Constitution or the laws derived from it. When it’s a binary choice then indeed Harris the lesser of evils despite what she may or may not have said here.

We are supposed to believe that the same man who calls the Press “the enemy of the people” has more respect for the first amendment than Harris? Please…

You don't have to vote for Trump or Harris. That is still your right...until they take that away too.

They, meaning Trump. He’s the one who says
he’ll be a dictator on day 1 and that if you vote for him, you won’t ever have to bother voting again

Um...hello? RVonse said it over and over again. You don't have to vote for him! So if you don't vote for Trump OR Harris, neither of them will win!

Easy peasy, lemon-squeezy!

I don't think it is easy nor do I think I know all the answers. But is voting one tyrant over another the answer?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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, Musk is censoring for Modi who is having Sikhs assassinated abroad.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Musk is tyranny.