A Vote for Kamala Is a Vote for Tyranny

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.”

When quotations don't even include a period, you've got to conclude it is a misquote / quote mine.

 

[RVonse]

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.

No I don't think Trump is a good choice either. For mostly different reason than you do though.

 

[pood]

No I don't think Trump is a good choice either. For mostly different reason than you do though.

Have you take note yet that the “information” you quoted in your OP was fraudulent?

 

[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.

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.

For now, I'm taking a good lesson not to read the Reddit post. Mostly due to its irrelevancy at this point there is no way to know what was even posted since its was removed. For all I know it was video of goofy and donald duck.

 

[RVonse]

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.

Its still not clear to me she was talking about Trump. But even if she was only talking about Trump's post on X, that is still the property of Musk. And not to be censored by the government as the first amendment is presently written.

 

[pood]

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.

Its still not clear to me she was talking about Trump. But even if she was only talking about Trump's post on X, that is still the property of Musk. And not to be censored by the government as the first amendment is presently written.

It is OBVIOUS that she was talking about Drumpf, and moreover she is saying that X should take it down, though she is talking about the need for some regulation for social media, which is quite reasonable. In case you don’t know, the First Amendment is not an unfettered right. There are penalties for libel and slander. There are penalties for yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. There are penalties for WITNESS INTIMIDATION. And so on.

It is absolutely pathetic that you will not apologize for spreading fraudulent content in your OP.

 

[RVonse]

No I don't think Trump is a good choice either. For mostly different reason than you do though.

Have you take note yet that the “information” you quoted in your OP was fraudulent?

No

 

[RVonse]

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.

Its still not clear to me she was talking about Trump. But even if she was only talking about Trump's post on X, that is still the property of Musk. And not to be censored by the government as the first amendment is presently written.

It is OBVIOUS that she was talking about Drumpf, and moreover she is saying that X should take it down, though she is talking about the need for some regulation for social media, which is quite reasonable. In case you don’t know, the First Amendment is not an unfettered right. There are penalties for libel and slander. There are penalties for yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. There are penalties for WITNESS INTIMIDATION. And so on.

It is absolutely pathetic that you will not apologize for spreading fraudulent content in your OP.

The video or the post from PCR?

 

[pood]

And by the way, Twitter banned Trump, as did Facebook and others, after he tried to overthrow the government on Jan. 6. Social media are PRIVATE ENTITIES that can police speech any way they wish, just like this site.

 

[pood]

No I don't think Trump is a good choice either. For mostly different reason than you do though.

Have you take note yet that the “information” you quoted in your OP was fraudulent?

No

WTF? You just quoted the relevant post that SHOWS YOU she was talking about Trump, not X!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Its still not clear to me she was talking about Trump.

Man, you are frugal with the use of critical reasoning skills. She is clearly and 105% talking about Trump via the single word of "privilege". A privilege, relative to her saying right before something about Terms of Use. There is no reasonable interpretation to suggest she said Musk owning Twitter was a privilege and wasn't talking about Trump's privilege to post on Twitter.

But even if she was only talking about Trump's post on X, that is still the property of Musk.

Wow! That's umm... quite the reach there.

But even if my OP link was completely full of shit... *throw something at the wall... hope it sticks*

And not to be censored by the government as the first amendment is presently written.

She stated that social media companies should be required to follow the same sort of requirements regarding content. The Government regulates all sorts of things.

You are applying a binary take on the First Amendment and social media. The Government has a right to regulate some speech. Some speech is against the law. This is effectively uncharted territory, though the courts have ruled that some attempts by the Government to manage speech on social media regarding the pandemic wasn't a violation of the Constitution. Trump was banned from Twitter when he incited an on-going riot, and Trump supporters still consider that censorship, even when Twitter did it on their own, without government pressure.

We don't really want the Government to govern a list of things that shouldn't be allowed on social media. It is cumbersome and rife for potential abuse. But we used to not put protective seals on OTC medicine bottles either, until the 1980s, but because of psychopaths and sociopaths, we have all sorts of rules, protections, regulations, and laws to stop them.

 

[RVonse]

It is OBVIOUS that she was talking about Drumpf, and moreover she is saying that X should take it down, though she is talking about the need for some regulation for social media, which is quite reasonable. In case you don’t know, the First Amendment is not an unfettered right. There are penalties for libel and slander. There are penalties for yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. There are penalties for WITNESS INTIMIDATION. And so on.

No I don't think Trump is a good choice either. For mostly different reason than you do though.

Have you take note yet that the “information” you quoted in your OP was fraudulent?

No

WTF? You just quoted the relevant post that SHOWS YOU she was talking about Trump, not X!

If we can believe that last post then yes she was talking about Trump. Its still unclear to me whether the video is fake or not.

 

[pood]

It is OBVIOUS that she was talking about Drumpf, and moreover she is saying that X should take it down, though she is talking about the need for some regulation for social media, which is quite reasonable. In case you don’t know, the First Amendment is not an unfettered right. There are penalties for libel and slander. There are penalties for yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. There are penalties for WITNESS INTIMIDATION. And so on.

No I don't think Trump is a good choice either. For mostly different reason than you do though.

Have you take note yet that the “information” you quoted in your OP was fraudulent?

No

WTF? You just quoted the relevant post that SHOWS YOU she was talking about Trump, not X!

If we can believe that last post then yes she was talking about Trump. Its still unclear to me whether the video is fake or not.

The quoted material is a TRANSCRIPT of a CNN INTERVIEW which was also shown on TELEVISION. So yes, the material you quoted in the OP is FRAUDULENT, QED!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No I don't think Trump is a good choice either. For mostly different reason than you do though.

Have you take note yet that the “information” you quoted in your OP was fraudulent?

No

WTF? You just quoted the relevant post that SHOWS YOU she was talking about Trump, not X!

If we can believe that last post then yes she was talking about Trump. Its still unclear to me whether the video is fake or not.

Okay, so you were ready to believe, out of the gate, tiny snippets of quotes that fit the narrative you desperately want to believe...

...but a whole transcript and video are making you hesitant to believe they are real? The transcript that was quote-mined (to be polite) for the article you presented as fact in the OP.

Where was this doubt before your posted the OP?

 

[RVonse]

No I don't think Trump is a good choice either. For mostly different reason than you do though.

Have you take note yet that the “information” you quoted in your OP was fraudulent?

No

WTF? You just quoted the relevant post that SHOWS YOU she was talking about Trump, not X!

After looking into this further this is what I think. It was bad communication by Harris that can be taken either way. You can take it that she was talking about Trump or that she was talking about X. I also believe at this point that the video I posted was not fake but it was also purposefully not allowing speech that should have been heard before it started.

So anyway that it what I think so far. But as I look into it more my opinion might change again.

As for thanking everyone, yes everyone deserves a huge thank you for pointing this out to me.

 

[pood]

No I don't think Trump is a good choice either. For mostly different reason than you do though.

Have you take note yet that the “information” you quoted in your OP was fraudulent?

No

WTF? You just quoted the relevant post that SHOWS YOU she was talking about Trump, not X!

After looking into this further this is what I think. It was bad communication by Harris that can be taken either way.

No, it CANNOT be taken either way. The VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the transcript shows Tapper asking about her call for Twitter (X) to SUSPEND Trump’s account — which, I remind you again, they already did once, after Jan. 6, when he tried to overthrow the government. This conversation clearly is NOT about taking down X! Your disingenuousness is astounding.

 

[RVonse]

Where was this doubt before your posted the OP?

That's a very good point Jimmy. The best test I know of test anything is to present it to the other side (this forum).

And it worked because the flaws of this article are now known to me.

 

[pood]

Where was this doubt before your posted the OP?

That's a very good point Jimmy. The best test I know of test anything is to present it to the other side (this forum).

And it worked because the flaws of this article are now known to me.

So now you admit the ”info” in the OP is BS? And if so, don’t you think it was your responsibility to check this out before spreading such egregious disinformation?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Where was this doubt before your posted the OP?

That's a very good point Jimmy. The best test I know of test anything is to present it to the other side (this forum).

What test? You presented it as fact. Doubted other people's thoughts it was dubious. Further doubts on whether anything of the video or transcript (in which your OP quoted, dubiously at first look) was real, which would be a very exotic claim, with absolutely no evidence to support that.

And it worked because the flaws of this article are now known to me.

Dude, that is the most disingenuous post I've ever read you write here.

The flaws were inherent in the article in the OP, when it didn't include more than a few words in quotes! The doubt should have been there, not when you are being hammered on it after you suggest the video could be fake.

 

[RVonse]

No, it CANNOT be taken either way. The VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the transcript shows Tapper asking about her call for Twitter (X) to SUSPEND Trump’s account — which, I remind you again, they already did once, after Jan. 6, when he tried to overthrow the government. This conversation clearly is NOT about taking down X! Your disingenuousness is astounding.

Here is the above copied and pasted again:

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.

Harris saying Trump should have his privilege removed for sure. But it is still unclear to me if she wants X taken down or Trump taken down. "It" can either be Trump or X.