Poll for Trump Supporters: Will you push back if he goes full fascist?

[AntonToo]

There's an implied coercion at the heart of every "request" from government.

In Fascism there is no IMPLIED anything, it is ACTUAL, VIOLENT COERCION.

Government asking for co-operation in a context of constitutional democracy, with freedom of speech and independant judiciary is just that - AN ASK that a media company is reasonably free to ignore.

 

[daveman]

I think it is typical that a left leaning person would put up a stacked poll and then stack the outcome by limiting who responds.

I kind of figure that's the way they do all polls.

"We polled a thousand likely voters with unnatural hair color and multiple facial piercings and the results tell us Harris is going to win the election!"

 

[daveman]

Specific taxes and regulations have little to nothing to do with fascist dictatorship dummy. Hitler would not be less of a Hitler if only he lowered taxes some.

I've already explained what a fascist dictatorship is and if you are not mentally equiped to understand such fundamental political concepts then thats as far as I could possibly take this.

Your definition of fascism is "anything Trump does".

Your definition of not-fascism is "anything Democrats do".

 

[daveman]

What the **** is the difference? The point is not why they asked but the fact that it was an ask, not a forced mandate by a totalitarian state.

The 5th Circuit Agrees That Federal Officials Unconstitutionally 'Coerced' or 'Encouraged' Online Censorship​

The plaintiffs in this case, Missouri v. Biden, include five social media users, along with the states of Missouri and Louisiana. They argued that the Biden administration's public and private pressure on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube amounted to government-directed censorship. The 5th Circuit essentially agreed, endorsing much of Doughty's analysis. According to the appeals court, the administration's persistent demands that Facebook et al. do more to control "misinformation"—which were coupled with implicit threats of punishment through heavier regulation, antitrust action, and increased civil liability for user-posted content—crossed the line between permissible government speech and impermissible intrusion on private decisions.

As it turns out, it was forced.

You may sputter and fume impotently now, as you try to make up a reason why the Biden Admin wasn't acting in a fascist manner.

 

[daveman]

Ignoramus, our courts have long ago established that our government has very broad powers to act in the public interest.

And thats a red herring anyway, because what you are saying in no way refutes that an ask for voluntary co-operation is in no way Fascism make.

"Who cares what Mussolini did! He made the trains run on time!"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You just can't get it, can you?

I get you're running away.

 

[daveman]

It absolutely does not matter WHY the government was asking, the only thing that matters to the discussion is that government was merely asking.

If a social platform didn't want to sensor those posts, they didn't have to and in fact many platforms didn't.

As I just showed, and as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled, the Biden Admin did indeed force media outlets to comply.

 

[daveman]

You just can't get it, can you?

Answer the question. What's in the public interests about hiding the crimes of Democrats?

 

[AntonToo]

The 5th Circuit Agrees That Federal Officials Unconstitutionally 'Coerced' or 'Encouraged' Online Censorship​

As it turns out, it was forced.

You may sputter and fume impotently now, as you try to make up a reason why the Biden Admin wasn't acting in a fascist manner.

Yes imagine that, a court reviewing a governemnt ask and deeming it crossing the line into coersion that violated constitutional freedom of speech.

What a fascist dictatorship! How could anyone say no to government asks in such a repressive country!?

 

[daveman]

Yes imagine that, a court reviewing a governemnt ask and deeming it crossing the line into coersion that violated constitutional freedom of speech.

What a fascist dictatorship!

Here it's been proven the Biden Admin acted in a fascist manner BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION, and you refuse to see it.

It wasn't an ask.

You're a good bootlicker.

 

[AntonToo]

Here it's been proven the Biden Admin acted in a fascist manner

No it wasn't, injunction was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Try again.

 

[daveman]

No it wasn't, injunction was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Try again.

And yet, oddly the media complied with the demands on threat of government action.

So your contention is it's not fascism if a court says "you can't do that" after the fact.

 

[AntonToo]

And yet, oddly the media complied with the demands on threat of government action.

Social media companies VOLATARILY co-operated with what they thought were reasonable asks.

If they didn't, and felt government crossed the line from ask into coersion of their freedom of speech, then they would sue the government in a court of law, because at the end of the day we live in an open, constitutional democracy.

But they didn't, the case was brought by a few users who ultimately had no standing.

 

[daveman]

Social media companies VOLATARILY co-operated with what they thought were reasonable asks.

If they didn't, and felt government crossed the line from ask into coersion of their freedom of speech, then they would sue the government in a court of law, because at the end of the day we live in an open, constitutional democracy.

But they didn't, the case was brought by a few users who ultimately had no standing.

Yup, I called it.

"Your definition of not-fascism is 'anything Democrats do'."

 

[AntonToo]

Yup, I called it.

"Your definition of not-fascism is 'anything Democrats do'."

You are an idiot.

 

[daveman]

You are an idiot.

If that makes you feel better about being a bootlicker for Democrat totalitarianism, sure.

 

[AntonToo]

If that makes you feel better about being a bootlicker for Democrat totalitarianism, sure.

Wasting my time on stupid people like you who can't grasp simple concepts doesn't make me feel better.

In your not-so-brave new word FASCISTS! Are people that ask media companies to volantarily address misinformation on their platform

 

[daveman]

Wasting my time on stupid people like you who can't grasp simple concepts doesn't make me feel better.

In your brave new word FASCISTS! Are people that ask media companies to volantarily address misinformation on their platform

"Ask". "Voluntarily".

That's like the IRS asking you to pretty please pay your taxes if you feel like it.

 

[AntonToo]

That's like the IRS asking you to pretty please pay your taxes if you feel like it.

Tax evasion is a crime and IRS will make a criminal referal against you for a refusal to comply.

It is NOT a crime to refuse to address what gov suggests is misinformation on your site, there is no criminal liability for refusal to co-operate.

To think that two are same is just ******* dumb.

 

[Monoculturalist]

I'm not looking for a bunch of denials here. I know you think he won't. The question is, "What if he does?". Will you withdraw your support? Will you fight back? Do you have the courage to answer?

Depends on what you mean by that. I would argue we're already somewhat fascist in terms of the incestuous relationship between our government and industry.

That being said, I would fight against violations of constitutional rights. If he tried to suspend freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, or any of the various other rights listed in the Constitution, then yes, I would resist the regime.