A Vote for Kamala Is a Vote for Tyranny

[RVonse]

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.

I guess I'm not as smart as you Jimmy.

 

[pood]

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.

Utterly astounding. You are cherry-picking and quote-mining the transcript. Read the very first line.

 

[pood]

The VERY FIRST LINE unmistakably establishes the CONTEXT of the conversation. The are talking about her call for X to suspend Trump, and not, as your OP BS would have it, any call by Harris to “take down” X!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I guess I'm not as smart as you Jimmy.

For a "truther", you don't seem to be able to read into information manipulation too well. That definitely is something you should work on. You took a blog article that had highly dubious quotations and concluded a vote for Harris was a vote for tyranny.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

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 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.

The entire paragraph is about Trump. It starts with Trump's actions, his Twitter posts, and ends with how she think Trump has violated his privilege to post, referencing Twitter's Terms and Conditions.

The text that follows implies regulations that could apply equally regarding extreme content across platforms.

And just to be clear here, VP Harris is talking about Trump committing crimes with his posts, obstruction, witness intimidation, inciting violence, not merely about opinion or Trump calling people mean words.

 

[pood]

Oh, and look at this deepfake post on X from the depraved Elon Musk. Of course shit like this should be regulated. This is actually libel.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Right. That is Cher, from her Fabulous Apparatchik Tour (2009).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh, and look at this deepfake post on X from the depraved Elon Musk. Of course shit like this should be regulated. This is actually libel.

View attachment 47617

Musk: It is a joke. It is just a joke. Why are you being so serious?
pood: What is the joke?
Musk: ... It's satire!
pood: How?
Musk: ... I'm busy, I need to post some more xits about Brazil and how I'm above the law.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Oh, and look at this deepfake post on X from the depraved Elon Musk. Of course shit like this should be regulated. This is actually libel.

View attachment 47617

Musk: It is a joke. It is just a joke. Why are you being so serious?
pood: What is the joke?
Musk: ... It's satire!
pood: How?
Musk: ... I'm busy, I need to post some more xits about Brazil and how I'm above the law.

Didn’t Elon require that satirical posts be labeled as such? After many users started posting as him, right?

 

[Bronzeage]

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 response illustrates why so many people, myself included, doubt the sincerity of Trump supporters when they present arguments.

When it's easily demonstrated that Trump's confirmed statements are more tyrannical than dubious Harris statements and positions, the issue is dodged.

When I observe this kind of rhetorical reticence, my conclusion is the Trump supporter feels they can't state their true reasoning, either to support Trump or oppose Harris. Trump, as a candidate and a person in general, exhibits reprehensible traits which most people would not tolerate in a friend or spouse, but acceptable to his base.

Unable to present Trump as a good and honest man(and face public ridicule), they accuse his his opponent of being a milder version of Trump's bad and dishonest.

The question remains, why is your tyrant preferable to mine? Actually the thing of which I am most curious is, of all the Republicans who wanted to be President, why is the choice is a liar, a fraud, a cheat, a rapist, and a convicted criminal?

 

[Rhea]

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.

There are a lot of people, me included, who bring ideas to this forum to seek feedback and test it out.

Typically, it is prefaced with, “What do you all think of this? I read it and it seems like a good argument, but I don’t have the time/skill to really determine that. Thoughts?”


What they do NOT say, if they are just “testing it out” or doing a fact check, is, essentially, “are you prepared for this truth?”

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?

ProTip: if you want to use the face-saving, “I was just using this forum to test-drive the idea” defense, then it is super-duper wicked-easy to just say, “I’m test-driving this idea. Give me your reactions.”

But you chose to present it as a fact that should scare us all.
And now you find out it was not a fact at all, not even fact-adjacent.
Humility on the front end saves humiliation on the back end, as the kids say.

Also, I do not believe for one nano-second that you were thinking when you made your OP, “Oh, I’m going to fact check this with the gang!”

 

[jonatha]

I guess I'm not as smart as you Jimmy

QFT

 

[TomC]

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

Out of all the people who bought PRC's lie as thoroughly as you did, how many do you suppose put it to the test like you did? Where it got ripped apart and exposed for the blatant misinformation that it is.
Probably not many. I expect that the majority of his audience just bought it, hook line and sinker, and now believe it and repeat it.

I often hear ridiculous things coming from Trump supporters. This kind of credibility on their part is what is really pushing the USA towards tyranny.
Tom

 

[Ford]

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

Out of all the people who bought PRC's lie as thoroughly as you did, how many do you suppose put it to the test like you did? Where it got ripped apart and exposed for the blatant misinformation that it is.
Probably not many. I expect that the majority of his audience just bought it, hook line and sinker, and now believe it and repeat it.

I often hear ridiculous things coming from Trump supporters. This kind of credibility on their part is what is really pushing the USA towards tyranny.
Tom

When I was doing the amateur comedy thing, I knew a couple people who'd been in Jay Leno's orbit. One as a writer, and the other as a "man on the street." When they did the "Jaywalking" bit, it took them all day long to find a few people on the streets of Los Angeles who were innocently ignorant of simple facts like "who is the current president" or "where is the state capitol?" It might even take longer to find enough to fill up a 2 minute segment.

Now you have people like "The Good Liars" or Jordan Klepper, who can find all the dumbassery in one convenient location: A Trump rally.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

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.

Such is the way of conservativism, zero actual thought.

 

[Ford]

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.

Such is the way of conservativism, zero actual thought.

Unfortunately, Trump's pet justices on the Supreme Court (the three he appointed plus Alito and Thomas who are "in the tank" for him) have brought Harris' reasoning here into question. If Trump gets back into the White House, and uses the official White House Twix account to threaten witnesses, that could be construed as an "official act" and might not in fact be a crime anymore. They gave Presidents pretty broad latitude to crime, so long as it can at least partially fall under the definition of "official."


I wonder if his supporters are okay with giving Harris that sort of power? My guess is no.

 

[ZiprHead]

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 video was not fake, but it was conveniently edited to match PCR's lies and you, again, fell for it. Now you're too ashamed to admit you've been taken in by a fraud that you are trying to throw anything at the wall hoping something sticks to exonerate your fuck up.

Again, I ask, when are you going to realize these people you follow are lying to you for money?

 

[Jarhyn]

They gave Presidents pretty broad latitude to crime, so long as it can at least partially fall under the definition of "official republican".

FTFY

 

[ideologyhunter]

There is almost nothing that a corrupt President and his legal team couldn't fob off as official duties. Nixon could have survived Watergate under the new theory. Clinton could have cooked up a WH aide orientation course that included Optional Recreational Activity Lessons. And the orange man? The call to the Georgia secretary of state, specifying how many votes he needed? That was just Trump pursuing fair results in the election. Trump siccing special counsels on his enemies (as he says he will do)? He's in charge of law enforcement. Trump telling Comey to lay off Flynn? Trump was just ensuring fair treatment under law. Thanks a ton, Samuel.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Please spare us the bullshit test here. You were all in on what the PCR said and you're still flinging trying to exonerate yourself from the guilt of your fuck up.