A Vote for Kamala Is a Vote for Tyranny

[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!

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?

You very clearly think you have all the answers. Of course, all your answers are wrong. As others have pointed out, Trump has been very direct about his desire to be a tyrant. He has said that he was right to try and overturn his election loss, has declared his desire to be a dictator, and has stated that after 4 years there will be no more voting.

Compare that with the current administration. Biden was VP when Trump won the electoral vote in 2016. Biden certified those results and stepped aside. Harris has said - in very plain language that almost anyone can understand - that if it is the will of the people that Trump be President again, she will certify that result.

You are deluded if you think they are both tyrants. One has said over again over again that he desires to be a tyrant. The other has said she will follow the Constitution. You'd know that if you consumed something other than drooling conspiracy theory content.

 

[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. 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.

Gotta wonder why Musk is suing advertisers if Musk is so pro-freedom.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Because despite the things Trump always talked about "throw Clinton in jail for example" he actually never did any of this.

Because his stance on “law and order” is merely pandering to his base. It’s clear he doesn’t care about the law and the fair he execution of it nor the prosecution of its violations.

Biden actually did what Trump only actually bragged about.

I assume that’s why Trump is currently behind bars?

Biden has done nothing of the sort.

 

[Ford]

Gotta wonder why Musk is suing advertisers if Musk is so pro-freedom.

I mean, the guy spent north of 44 billion dollars on a social media platform because his fee-fees were hurt and he wanted to be a dictator of that particular online space. He used his obscene wealth to shut down any criticism of himself and promote his racist ideas. He's a bit like Putin, but without the army, Polonium, and high rise hotel windows.

I'm guessing that if Muskrat thought he could get away with murdering a critic, he totally would do that.

Now...what were we talking about? Oh yeah...tyrants.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The First Amendment as it currently stands prevents the government censorship of private speech except in rare cases e.g. incitement to riot*. Thus, what Musk or Zuckerberg do with their respective businesses should not be interfered with by the government. Put another way, if you don't like it, then don't participate.

The KKK and the American Communist Party both have the right to say what they want because governmental action shall not infringe on those rights.

However, norms have been so grossly and purposely violated that maybe it is time to rethink some things about the First Amendment. The notion that politicians are bullshitters is a well established tradition in the U.S. and worldwide, but it is a norm. The entirety of the political spectrum make big promises they can't possibly keep, but it's accepted as normal because the need to appeal to as many people as possible is needed so that they may have a shot at getting some of those things done.

Anyway, social media is here to stay, but it's effects have been so damaging and so wide ranging that something needs to be done. The same goes for entities like Fox News and OANN, which have distorted politics and promoted hateful ignorance to the point where at least 1/3 of Americans really can't tell the basic difference between reality and the indisputable manufacture of lies. It has been so damaging that the U.S. is on the verge of losing its democracy. This is not acceptable.

What's the answer though? There is no simple solution to this massive problem. It could start with the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated and applied not just to news media, but to social media sites as well. Rigorous education of our young people regarding the dangers and misinformation spread by social media could be another part of a more wide ranging effort to protect our democracy. The counter argument, and it's a legitimate one, is that overreach could and would almost certainly would happen in some instances. To me though, the potential problems with overreach is a much lesser threat than letting things continue as they are.

*How Trump was never held accountable for his abundantly clear incitement in the year leading up to January 6, and his words on that date is unfuckingbelievable to me. Same with his Emolument Clause violations.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Your support for Trump is obvious. That you claim to care about freedom and democracy and still support Trump is hypocracy of the highest order.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

The person that posted it took it down because he found out it was BS.

Found a transcript here. Yep she was talking about Trump, not Elon.

Post deleted. Thanks for the heads up.

You should take this as a lesson and don’t blindly believe everything you see.

I'll definitely be more careful in future. I think it's the first time I've done something like this.

I do wonder though if Kamala may try if she becomes president.

I suggest you take the bolded above to heart.

 

[ideologyhunter]

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.

Your support for Trump is obvious. That you claim to care about freedom and democracy and still support Trump is hypocracy of the highest order.

I can't help it, you know. When I think of how a Christian man like Donald Trump has been, literally, crucified for us, it makes me want to scream. The Deep State was coming for me, and Donald Trump got in the way. How can I ignore the sacrifice this sweet (but tough!) man made for me? And everyone knows Joe Biden set him up for assassination at Mar-a-Lago. Don't ask me to defend my love and allegiance for Donald Trump. I wear it like a veteran carries his battle scars. Proudly, defiantly. I will march with Donald Trump until we literally root out the vermin that live in the confines of our country. The Deep State snipers may shoot Mr. Trump's ears off, but they will never find his brains.

 

[ZiprHead]

Here is what Harris actually said, in context.:

TAPPER: So, one of the topics that you chose to talk a lot about, especially confronting Senator Warren on was your push, your call for Twitter to suspend the account of President Trump. Why was that important?

HARRIS: What's important about it is this, Jake, and I say this as a former prosecutor. You have to take seriously witness intimidation. You have to take seriously an attempt to obstruct justice. You have to take seriously a threat to a witness and really to their safety and potentially their life.

And when you're talking about Donald Trump, he has 65 million Twitter followers. He has proven himself to be willing to obstruct justice. Just ask Bob Mueller. You can look at the manifesto from the shooter in El Paso to know that what Donald Trump says on Twitter impacts people's perceptions about what they should and should not do.

And we're talking about a private corporation, Twitter, that has terms of use, and as far as I'm concerned and I think most people would say, including members of Congress who he has threatened --

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

HARRIS: -- that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. The bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.

TAPPER: He is the president of the United States, and I would -- you know, you might argue, first of all, he doesn't --

HARRIS: He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States. He does not have the right to threaten witnesses and threaten their safety because he is president of the United States.

In fact, that's the very problem with Donald Trump. He thinks he's above the law, and we cannot keep reinforcing that. And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.

TAPPER: But how did he threaten the life of a witness? By calling for --

HARRIS: The way that he has talked about this -- the whistleblower.

TAPPER: Whistleblower?

HARRIS: Absolutely.

TAPPER: You think that puts the whistleblower's life in danger?

HARRIS: I absolutely do. Let's remember this has actually been the subject of certainly discussion in the open about what should be the precautions that are taken to ensure the safety of the whistleblower because of a concern about these threats.

She was talking about Trump, not Musk, and his reckless use of social media for witness intimidation.

Amazing. RVonse once again unquestioningly accepts a right wing source and once again it turns out to be bullshit. RVonse, question for you. Do you like being abused and embarrassed like this? Because you seem to do it a lot.

 

[pood]

Well, RVonse? Care to retract and apologize?

 

[Shadowy Man]

So what she said needs to be “taken down” is the account of someone who has violated the terms of use, not the entire site.

 

[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

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?

Well, I believe you suggested that you would vote for Tulsi Gabbard who is not more competent and at least as much in Putin’s pocket as Trump is so you tell me. And at the risk of making people angry, I will state my belief, based on experience, that in a close election, voting for a third party candidates date ensures the worst choice wins. Of course, Gabbard has thrown her hat in with Trump so I’m not certain that it would make even a small difference deference.

 

[LoAmmo]

Well, RVonse? Care to retract and apologize?

I’m gonna go way out on a limb and guess “no.”

Just like the other day when
1.
he said the military should be deployed along the border to control immigration

2.
I pointed out they are prohibited by law from doing that

3.
Crickets from then on.

People like that don’t have it in them. They are missing that gear, that ability to be corrected on something. The humility to recognize (and admit) they got over their skis a little bit, and misspoke, fell for a con job, got it wrong.

 

[Toni]

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.

Who did Biden throw in jail? What did I miss?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

A Vote for Kamala Is a Vote for Tyranny |

www.paulcraigroberts.org

Kamala said “he (Musk) has lost his privileges and it (X) must be taken down.” Kamala is saying that free speech, the bedrock foundation of American freedom is a privilege granted by government, and by refusing to accept government censorship of free speech, Musk has lost his “privilege” to operate a social media company, which “must be taken down.”

For example, “the bottom line is that you can’t say you have one rule for Facebook and a different rule for Twitter” (she means X). There is no such rule. What she is saying is that Facebook’s cowardly or woke management has agreed to censor in order to protect the lies that constitute the official narratives, and Elon Musk, being a person of character and integrity, has not. Kamala Harris is so totally ignorant and so totally uneducated that she is unaware that the US Constitution governs the US government. She thinks our Constitutional rights are subject to regulation by government in order to conform us to official narratives.

Kamala says that social media sites “are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any oversight or regulation,” but so is she. So is CNN. So is NPR. So is NBC. So is CBS. So is ABC. So is the Associated Press. So is The New York Times. So is the Washington Post. So is the Associated Press. So is the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland security. So is the Supreme Court. So is Congress. So is the President of the United States.


If we want to keep our freedom of speech we must vote for it. Benjamin Franklin was correct long ago when he said "we have a republic now if we can keep it". With the Patriot Act and other growth of our government, citizens rights have become steadily diminished while the state becomes ever more powerful.

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?

This stuff was somewhat entertaining for a while. Now it's just completely fucked up.

 

[scombrid]

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, 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.

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?

The RVonse disinfo solution to the march of tyranny is to help it along by flooding the zone with shit to discourage the opposition from voting.

 

[Patooka]

Man, this thread is painful. I do like how RVonse is still pretending he doesn't know what Project 2025 is, though.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Man, this thread is painful. I do like how RVonse is still pretending he doesn't know what Project 2025 is, though.

And there are quite a few conservatives on this forum who are in denial about it. No different than the election deniers.

 

[LoAmmo]

I bought a book over the weekend by Steve Benen (he’s a producer for Rachel Maddow’s show) called “Ministry of Truth,”
subtitled “Democracy, Reality, and the Republican’s War on the Recent Past.”
Basically, it’s about RVonse, writ large, and the most depressing thing about it is the inescapable conclusion that the reason the Right does this substitution-of-reality thing is because of how frightfully well it works.
There are chapters on Trump’s economy being “the best in the history of the world,”
Jan 6 being “a peaceful expression of love by tourists,” Trump’s “awesomely perfect phone call to Ukraine that everybody is saying was perfect, maybe the best phone call anybody’s ever made,” and so on.

It’s a good read—or, you can read RVonse’s posts for free, and see Benen’s conclusion borne out in real time.

 

[pood]

Well, RVonse? Care to retract and apologize?

*Crickets*