What Will Be So Horrible Underneath A (Second) Trump Administration?

[White 6]

There is nothing emotional about it. Why don't you go look at some laws and policies. What do you call redlining for example? Dred Scott? Black Codes? Vagrancy laws? Restrictive Covenants? And the FHA manual most certainly codified racism.

I call them manifestations, rather than causes.
Manifestations of racism are seen in all cultures, including those on the African continent.

 

[Coyote]

No, I define subversive as working against the good of the people. Anti-American. The alternative is to allow everything, including people working clearly against the country.

And what constitutes “working against the good of the people” or anti-American?

Here’s my list:
Banning me from making my own healthcare decisions about my body.
Opposing same sex marriage and the adoption of kids by same sex couples.
Making the leaving of water in the desert for immigrants illegal.
Forceably removing children from their illegal immigrant parents to punish them.
Attacking and ransacking the Capital and attempting to overthrow an election.
Using the military to put down demonstrations.
Gerrymandering

There is a ton more and I’m willing to bet your list is very different.

So…who gets to decide which of these things are subversive and or anti-American and which tax exempt entities advocating for them should be shut down and shut up?

 

[toobfreak]

Biden hasn’t done so. He has many failings but that is not one of them.

The 5th Circuit agrees that federal officials unconstitutionally 'coerced' or 'encouraged' online censorship

The appeals court narrowed a preliminary injunction against such meddling but confirmed the threat that it poses to freedom of speech.

reason.com

Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook to 'censor' some COVID-19 content during the pandemic

Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, "repeatedly pressured" Facebook for months to take down "certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire."

www.pbs.org

Joe Biden’s Cynical Turn Against the Press

After a wave of intense scrutiny, the President and his campaign have begun to target the media, and many of his supporters have followed suit.

www.newyorker.com

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/06/politics/social-media-misinformation-biden-administration-injunction-explainer/index.html

I should stop right there and not even read much less reply to your other responses for making so blatantly untrue a claim.

But you make one point I really agree with: political attempts to force journalists to reveal their sources (I think that was in one of your videos?). But instead of looking at it with open eyes you make it partisan. Every administration - Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden has been guilty of trying to limit journalistic freedom, specifically by revealing sources.

But you cannot verify the veracity of totally hidden sources, like the secret whistleblower during the Mueller Russia/Ukraine investigation.

BUT it is Musk’s property and Musk’s rules. Just don’t pretend there isn’t censorship.

I'm really the wrong one to ask. I don't use any of the social media. This place is the only place I ever participate on.

Agree. Now WHO gets to define what “integrity” is?

Integrity is defined by the local standard. The local standard here is the organic law of the United States.

Who decides whether one is acting as a “sponsor to advance one party’s lies and spin”?

The evidence decides.

Don’t you think this is dangerous territory when you dealing with very subjective criteria?

It is only dangerous when left in the control of dishonest, partisans.

 

[toobfreak]

It's dishonest that you alter my Quote.
Very dishonest of you, you trump bootlicking Cult Member.

Nothing "dishonest" about simply subtracting the irrelevant portions to which I am not responding to in order to aid the reader, that is called truncating. It isn't like I put any words in your mouth. AS to being a bootlicker, democrats lick the boots of the corrupt deep state. And as to being a "cult member," seems that YOU are in the cult of the minority, I share the MAJORITY opinion. But thanks for deflecting from my points, it just shows I was right.

 

[Coyote]

The 5th Circuit agrees that federal officials unconstitutionally 'coerced' or 'encouraged' online censorship

The appeals court narrowed a preliminary injunction against such meddling but confirmed the threat that it poses to freedom of speech.

reason.com

Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook to 'censor' some COVID-19 content during the pandemic

Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, "repeatedly pressured" Facebook for months to take down "certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire."

www.pbs.org

Joe Biden’s Cynical Turn Against the Press

After a wave of intense scrutiny, the President and his campaign have begun to target the media, and many of his supporters have followed suit.

www.newyorker.com

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/06/politics/social-media-misinformation-biden-administration-injunction-explainer/index.html

I should stop right there and not even read much less reply to your other responses for making so blatantly untrue a claim.

What did the Supreme Court determine?

But you cannot verify the veracity of totally hidden sources, like the secret whistleblower during the Mueller Russia/Ukraine investigation.

A lot of investigative journalism relies on being able ensure confidentiality for sources particularly if retribution is possible. Without that many sources would not speak and a lot of major stories would never have been broken. Forcing journalists to reveal sources would effectively curtail what they can report. It would silence whistleblowers and anyone who wants to report on wrong doing in our government. A free press is integral to democracy. The first thing that autocrats do is to curtail it and control the message. It affects everyone: msm, rightwing media, news talk shows, citizen journalists.

I'm really the wrong one to ask. I don't use any of the social media. This place is the only place I ever participate on.


Integrity is defined by the local standard. The local standard here is the organic law of the United States.

I don’t see how organic law relates to integrity in journalism.

The evidence decides.

And what if people don’t agree on the evidence.

It is only dangerous when left in the control of dishonest, partisans.

Woah…who determines who is a “dangerous partisan”? That is a direct danger to free speech.

 

[dblack]

Hopefully nothing will be horrible about the next four years.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ask us again in 4 years. Either it will have been fine, or you will know, while only being able to speculate how bad it might have been if Kamala, won.

That won't matter. 4 years from now, trump could end hunger and broker world peace and the left will still say he's the worst president in American history

 

[toobfreak]

And what constitutes “working against the good of the people” or anti-American?

Impossible to say here without an in-depth analysis of the context of the actions in question. There is no one simple, general, blanket definition. That is like asking a judge to summarily rule on every case of theft just because she has seen one case.

Here’s my list:
Banning me from making my own healthcare decisions about my body.

Such as banning folks from declining to take the experimental covid vaccine and deplatforming, debanking and firing them, after which it was proven dangerous and ineffective in many cases anyway? But as to abortion, the healthcare decision must also include the actions which got you pregnant in the first place (sleeping around, not using contraception), the interests of the father, the fact that the fetus is IN your body not really part of your body (a body within a body) and of course, the rights of the fetus itself. There is also a RESPONSIBILITY involved, and a woman should not just have carte blanche access to unlimited abortions forever--- that just invites more unwanted pregnancies!

Opposing same sex marriage and the adoption of kids by same sex couples.

I have mixed feelings about same sex couple adoption. I would have to see and meet the couple to evaluate their fitness as individuals just as with any other couple. But the historical definition of a /marriage/ is inconsistent with same sex couples. It damages the institution of marriage as a holy matrimony. It was sufficient to just stay with "civil unions.'

Making the leaving of water in the desert for immigrants illegal.

I know nothing of that. But it does sound rather dubious, in effect aiding an illegal activity without which these people wouldn't make it here and would have to go home, and might quit coming.

Forceably removing children from their illegal immigrant parents to punish them.

I would have to see an individual case. But generally, if a person is going to jail for any crime, you CAN'T TAKE THE CHILD TO JAIL WITH YOU.

Attacking and ransacking the Capital and attempting to overthrow an election.

I thought J6 was the RESPONSE to an election already stolen? And the data now seems to support that. Unless someone can tell me where 11 million democrats voters disappeared to between Biden and Harris. But I at least respect the fact Mrs. C that while we may disagree on many things, I appreciate the fact that unlike most left-leaning people here, you make an honest attempt to SUPPORT your claims and views and defend them sagaciously, and even if I don't always follow or agree with your thinking, at least I usually understand it, as opposed to many here who just throw out crack views and accusations then simply disappear.

 

[Coyote]

Impossible to say here without an in-depth analysis of the context of the actions in question. There is no one simple, general, blanket definition. That is like asking a judge to summarily rule on every case of theft just because she has seen one case.

That is exactly why it is dangerous: it is subjective and impossible to clearly define which means it can be used for partisan purposes or to frighten people and silence them out of fear of inadvertently crossing it. A judge ruling on theft has an exact law clearly define what theft is.

Such as banning folks from declining to take the experimental covid vaccine and deplatforming, debanking and firing them, after which it was proven dangerous and ineffective in many cases anyway? But as to abortion, the healthcare decision must also include the actions which got you pregnant in the first place (sleeping around, not using contraception), the interests of the father, the fact that the fetus is IN your body not really part of your body (a body within a body) and of course, the rights of the fetus itself. There is also a RESPONSIBILITY involved, and a woman should not just have carte blanche access to unlimited abortions forever--- that just invites more unwanted pregnancies!


I have mixed feelings about same sex couple adoption. I would have to see and meet the couple to evaluate their fitness as individuals just as with any other couple. But the historical definition of a /marriage/ is inconsistent with same sex couples. It damages the institution of marriage as a holy matrimony. It was sufficient to just stay with "civil unions.'


I know nothing of that. But it does sound rather dubious, in effect aiding an illegal activity without which these people wouldn't make it here and would have to go home, and might quit coming.


I would have to see an individual case. But generally, if a person is going to jail for any crime, you CAN'T TAKE THE CHILD TO JAIL WITH YOU.


I thought J6 was the RESPONSE to an election already stolen? And the data now seems to support that. Unless someone can tell me where 11 million democrats voters disappeared to between Biden and Harris. But I at least respect the fact Mrs. C that while we may disagree on many things, I appreciate the fact that unlike most left-leaning people here, you make an honest attempt to SUPPORT your claims and views and defend them sagaciously, and even if I don't always follow or agree with your thinking, at least I usually understand it, as opposed to many here who just throw out crack views and accusations then simply disappear.

I can argue each of those but that wasn’t my point. What you and I consider un-American or subversive varies widely, right?

And thanks

 

[Lakhota]

What Will Be So Horrible Underneath A (Second) Trump Administration?​

His fucking face. His fucking voice. His fucking family. His fucking NaziCon mafia.

 

[Mortis]

He's going to seal and secure the border, lower inflation, protect your right for free speech,.. Democrats what am I missing here? You call him Hitler yet he believes in first amendment rights so you are free to disagree with him.


Oh I know, you want women and children to feel unsafe in their restrooms, locker rooms, and to beat up on their sports teams. Is that right? Also, why do you want children to have gender reassignment surgeries so bad anyways? What is the point of that?

All I have to say is:

Welcome to Trump's America! If you don't like it, get the F*CK OUT while you can! Make sure the door doesn't hit your arse on the way out!

 

[White 6]

That won't matter. 4 years from now, trump could end hunger and broker world peace and the left will still say he's the worst president in American history

If he ends world hung and brokers world peace, even I would sing his praise, but not holding my breath for it to happen.

 

[toobfreak]

A lot of investigative journalism relies on being able ensure confidentiality for sources particularly if retribution is possible.

Granted. But not in all cases.

Forcing journalists to reveal sources would effectively curtail what they can report. It would silence whistleblowers and anyone who wants to report on wrong doing in our government.

True, the problem is whether the press is really reporting ON the government anymore or is already under control BY the government. Most feel it is the latter.

A free press is integral to democracy.

But if our press is 95% democrats all with an agenda (or at least pushed by their bosses) to promote a positive angle to all things democrat while a negative slant to all things republican (or at least Trump), then we have already lost a "free" press.

The first thing that autocrats do is to curtail it and control the message.

My point exactly. The message of the press has already been controlled for many years.

I don’t see how organic law relates to integrity in journalism.

Organic law is the basis from which all standards for objective decisions of suitability must be based since is establishes and defines 'Americanism.' Therefores "sedition" is that which opposes that established by the organic laws of the United States, rather than arbitrarily judged by any one individual.

And what if people don’t agree on the evidence.

Evidence is evidence. It must be hashed out in the crucible of open examination to test its veracity.

 

[Road Runner]

What trump needs to do is get rid of white racism.

Yeah so when are you going to stop being racist against white people?

We know that answer.
It was during the Biden Administration.
You happy I answered?

Now, who was killed by Illegals during the trump administration.
I would expect the SAME outrage, but I know that won't happen.

Yes but now you jump right back to but, but, but Trummmmmppppp!!!!

So, either say:

1). No Illegals killed Americans during the trump administration.
2). I simply don't know, and I refuse to do the research.
3). When you tell me the FACTS, I will deny it and cast blame upon someone else, like (D) Governors, or (D) Mayors, or anyone but trump.
4). I know you are just trying to be fair, and I understand you despise ALL politicians.
5). Other, but must have explanation.

I did a Google search for your information and nothing came up.

You aren't very intelligent and your anti trans obsession blinds you to reality. You can't even compare the two things. A parent can oppose his/her child smoking crack, but that child can get crack without their parents knowing it. That is a fucking fact. That cannot be done for gender reassignment. That is also a fact.

This isn't about whether or not a child can get away with something though it's about whether or not that the child should be allowed to do it in the first place. In both situations the answer is still no.

Where did you get such sudden faith in his abilities or intent, thinking he could or would eliminate racism, white, black, Asian, Hispanic or other, by anybody? You cannot push for legislation that would eliminate racism. On the other hand, Republican are very big on legislating what people can and cannot do with their bodies.

That too.

Thats not how it happens dumb ass. And the surgery is not permanent.

Again, not the point.

This isn't even close to the same thinig.

Yes it is.

What Will Be So Horrible Underneath A (Second) Trump Administration?​

Have you seen his cabinet picks?

Yeah they're pretty darn badass!

Hopefully nothing will be horrible about the next four years.

If you're a Republican it won't but people like you I worry about.

What Will Be So Horrible Underneath A (Second) Trump Administration?​

His fucking face. His fucking voice. His fucking family. His fucking NaziCon mafia.

 

[Coyote]

Granted. But not in all cases.


True, the problem is whether the press is really reporting ON the government anymore or is already under control BY the government. Most feel it is the latter.


But if our press is 95% democrats all with an agenda (or at least pushed by their bosses) to promote a positive angle to all things democrat while a negative slant to all things republican (or at least Trump), then we have already lost a "free" press.


My point exactly. The message of the press has already been controlled for many years.


Organic law is the basis from which all standards for objective decisions of suitability must be based since is establishes and defines 'Americanism.' Therefores "sedition" is that which opposes that established by the organic laws of the United States, rather than arbitrarily judged by any one individual.


Evidence is evidence. It must be hashed out in the crucible of open examination to test its veracity.

Once you start picking and choosing what press is worthy of protecting and what is not you are entering really dangerous territory, can’t you see that? If you feel it’s wrong, dishonest etc. that is what can be addressed in the legal system under slander and libel. There thousands of media sources to choose from if you don’t like the messaging of a particular source. You can choose.

It really has to be the protection of ALL journalistic freedom and confidentiality of their sources.


Btw this is a great discussion!

 

[Mortis]

Yeah so when are you going to stop being racist against white people?

Probably never! He can't help himself.

 

[Road Runner]

What Will Be So Horrible Underneath A (Second) Trump Administration?​

His fucking face. His fucking voice. His fucking family. His fucking NaziCon mafia.

Translation: Trump will a bad president because I said so and he's a big fat stinky poopyhead!!

 

[Lakhota]

Translation: Trump will a bad president because I said so and he's a big fat stinky poopyhead!!

You sound young and immature.

 

[toobfreak]

Once you start picking and choosing what press is worthy of protecting and what is not you are entering really dangerous territory, can’t you see that?

I would trust myself to do it based on their history of accurate reporting, freedom from partisanship, spin, slant, ties to government friends, etc., but I realize that not everyone would be fair.

If you feel it’s wrong, dishonest etc. that is what can be addressed in the legal system under slander and libel.

I would be in favor of suing news agencies or taking away their license if it is shown that they have repeatedly grossly distorted the facts toward the benefit of any one given political party. Any news agency acting as a political operative obviously should not be considered "free press." But I do get your fears of a slippery slope as once you can justify a little censorship, it becomes easier to justify a LOT.

There thousands of media sources to choose from if you don’t like the messaging of a particular source. You can choose.

There is merit to that, but then, a few media agencies carry a massive influence on public opinion, such as CBS (or is it NBC?). For instance, I do not appreciate Stephen Colbert masking his far left political heavily pro-democrat spin program as mere "late night entertainment." Bid Johnny Carson Return.

It really has to be the protection of ALL journalistic freedom and confidentiality of their sources.

Well, I don't think I would be comfortable giving carte blanche to any agency to say and do whatever the hell they want just because they call themselves a "news agency." Everything must exist within defined boundaries. But then, you are delving into some very deep and complex issues which I would normally give greater depth on, but it is late, I am tired, and I really just need to go eat and relax and fall asleep. Bye. Food for thought.

 

[dblack]

If you're a Republican it won't but people like you I worry about.

Why?