Why do you hate Trump?

[otto105]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

They don't actually hate Trump, they hate us. That's not changing. If anyone fell for the ploy that if we fed them Trump that they would let up on us, let me disabuse you of that right now. They live to express their hate, and they aren't real bright, just very determined and relentless.

DEMOCRATS SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT: By putting Proposition 16 on the ballot, California’s deep-blue legislators help elected Republicans Michelle Park Steel and Young Kim to Congress. Washington State’s Democrats may want to take note.

Narrator's voice: WA State Democrats will not take note.

Golden State voters — and especially immigrants — overwhelmingly rejected racial preferences.

They voted for Trumpism, even as they rejected Trump.

Progressive groups were shocked on Election Day by the fate of Proposition 16 in California.

Prop 16 would have amended the California Constitution and repealed the prohibition against preferential treatment based on race. That prohibition was put into the state constitution by 55 percent of the state’s voters in 1996. But the proposed repeal of the prohibition against racial preferences was rejected this month by a larger margin of 57 percent to 43 percent.

The Left imagines a world where the "unwashed" are ever moving toward their racialist views, in reality, over the last 25 years, the net movement is just as against their racializing silos as it was a quarter century ago, even more so.

"Trumpism" isn't about Trump, it's about equal treatment.

What makes this remarkable is that California has drifted far to the left since 1996 — Bill Clinton carried it for president by only 13 points that year. Joe Biden won the state by just under 30 points this year.

A new post-election survey called the California Community Poll and run by the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley provides some answers. It was conducted on behalf of some groups favoring Proposition 16 who couldn’t understand why they lost. It makes for fascinating reading.

"Everyone" was for Prop 16. Virtually the entire political and media establishment endorsed it. The state’s Democrat attorney general produced a ballot summary biased in favor of the measure. Major corporate and labor-union donations allowed proponents to spend $23 million. Opponents spent only $1.8 million and had zero money for television ads.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the results of this David vs. Goliath struggle as follows: “The findings of the survey provide the clearest evidence so far of the disconnect between those political leaders and many of their ostensible followers.” While there is widespread support for diversity and outreach to minority groups among the general public, the California Community at the same time found “broad skepticism about allowing government officials to use race, ethnicity or gender in making decisions.”

That skepticism extended across racial groups. Among Latinos, only 30 percent said Proposition 16 was a good idea, compared with 41 percent who called it a bad idea. Among Asian respondents, 35 percent called the proposition a good idea while 46 percent saying it was a bad idea. Whites were only slightly more opposed, with 32 percent thinking Prop 16 was a good idea and 53 percent a bad idea.

Proposition 16 was backed by a majority of African Americans. But only 56 percent of them called it a good idea, 19 percent said it was a bad idea, and a surprisingly high 25 percent weren’t sure.

The survey included the fascinating finding that immigrants were more opposed to racial quotas than native-born Americans were. “Many immigrants came to this country for equal opportunities” and are suspicious about preferences for specific groups, Charlie Woo, the board chairman of an Asian economic empowerment group, told the Los Angeles Times.

The White affluent Left presumes that they can build a coalition with resentful minorities, only to find that minorities want the same thing the rest of us do, equality before the law.

“The stunning defeat of Prop 16 sent a powerful national message that voters viewed the use of race as divisive, even toxic,”

"Progressives" in Washington State are already planning to put a measure on the ballot in 2022 to repeal that state’s ban on racial preferences. They already lost a similar attempt in 2019, when voters statewide rejected the idea despite massive infusions of campaign money from left-wing groups.

These folks are incapable of learning.

In CA Democrats lost two congressional seats in Orange County because Prop 16 was on the ballot. Republicans Michelle Steel and Young Kim, two Korean Americans, ousted liberal incumbents, with each getting 51 percent of the vote. Proposition 16 brought Asian voters who opposed it to the polls, and they then supported her and other candidates who also opposed it.

Leftists’ attempt to repeal bans on racial preferences in Washington State bring to mind the situation after workers revolted in East Germany in 1953, what their pigheaded Communist leaders really wanted was “to dissolve the people and elect another.”

There was a time when liberals learned from their political overreach. For example, after gun control cost them the House in 1994, they didn't try to reimpose it after they finally recaptured the House in 2006.

Even a flatworm will turn from pain, it's not currently clear that the racialist Left is as smart as a flatworm.

trumpism is NOT about "equal treatment" its about grievance politics

 

[otto105]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

It's the battle between the Snobs and Slobs. The entitled Middle Class fears the Working Middle Class and they routinely employ an array of tribalist cues that promote their "superiority" while assuring themselves what they view as the "upper middleclass" rightly views the "lower" middleclass as slobs.

Trump committed the sin of rejecting the snobs and embracing the "slobs". They will never forgive him for this.

Wow, way to establish the fact that YOU consider yourself a lower educated second class person...

Wow way to go F yourself. I do not used these "upper" and "lower" classifications of any human beings.

... Do you consider white rural young adults who chose to go to college and live in large cities with a diploma, diversity and density a traitor to the lower educated rural folks?

Your comments are so incongruent with mine that I have serious concerns that your skull may not currently be in the most advantageous positioning vs your lower intestine.

Correct that, re-read my post, then try again.

I get that you're butthurt.

But your classifications of "slobs" verses "snobs" using elitism I quite understand. You're a deplorable either own it or stop playing the victim over it.

I'm not butthurt at all. Your self-righteous take was so off-point that that there was no way for us to use it as a meaningful starting point. If you don't wish to understand the issue, what do I care? You have the right to your ignorance if that's your choice.

Your proving my point that you consider your political position to be that of the underclass railing against "elites". Elites being urban, educated and different than you.

Fake News. Indoctrination does not improve life skills, in fact, it deteriorates them. Their insecurity stems

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

It's the battle between the Snobs and Slobs. The entitled Middle Class fears the Working Middle Class and they routinely employ an array of tribalist cues that promote their "superiority" while assuring themselves what they view as the "upper middleclass" rightly views the "lower" middleclass as slobs.

Trump committed the sin of rejecting the snobs and embracing the "slobs". They will never forgive him for this.

Wow, way to establish the fact that YOU consider yourself a lower educated second class person...

Wow way to go F yourself. I do not used these "upper" and "lower" classifications of any human beings.

... Do you consider white rural young adults who chose to go to college and live in large cities with a diploma, diversity and density a traitor to the lower educated rural folks?

Your comments are so incongruent with mine that I have serious concerns that your skull may not currently be in the most advantageous positioning vs your lower intestine.

Correct that, re-read my post, then try again.

I get that you're butthurt.

But your classifications of "slobs" verses "snobs" using elitism I quite understand. You're a deplorable either own it or stop playing the victim over it.

I'm not butthurt at all. Your self-righteous take was so off-point that that there was no way for us to use it as a meaningful starting point. If you don't wish to understand the issue, what do I care? You have the right to your ignorance if that's your choice.

Your proving my point that you consider your political position to be that of the underclass railing against "elites". Elites being urban, educated and different than you.

You pretty much suck at at mind reading, and no, I have no use for snobs. I find them to be rather divisive and, at best, merely useless.

In your words, what is a "snob"?

I'm pretty sure you don't go to bubba at the other end of the tavern to check on your anal cist.

 

[Leo123]

If you are unable to honestly confront the facts I offer, you are free to snivel ad hominens, of course.

You offer no facts Mr. Snakeoil

 

[Leo123]

He spoke of his cock size compared to his hand size on STAGE during the Republican primary....

No, that wasn't CNNs list or anyone's list, just a smidgen of his lies off the top of my head, he tells so many many many lies, that you have to move on constantly, with his new lies of the day.....

I don't know why Trump supporters don't hear or see his lies, it's like they are in a trance, programmed to ignore them...???? That's almost as concerning as all of his lies....

It was a joke, humorless troglodyte. Does a man's cock size intimidate you or are you just jealous?

 

[Zorro!]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

They don't actually hate Trump, they hate us. That's not changing. If anyone fell for the ploy that if we fed them Trump that they would let up on us, let me disabuse you of that right now. They live to express their hate, and they aren't real bright, just very determined and relentless.

DEMOCRATS SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT: By putting Proposition 16 on the ballot, California’s deep-blue legislators help elected Republicans Michelle Park Steel and Young Kim to Congress. Washington State’s Democrats may want to take note.

Narrator's voice: WA State Democrats will not take note.

Golden State voters — and especially immigrants — overwhelmingly rejected racial preferences.

They voted for Trumpism, even as they rejected Trump.

Progressive groups were shocked on Election Day by the fate of Proposition 16 in California.

Prop 16 would have amended the California Constitution and repealed the prohibition against preferential treatment based on race. That prohibition was put into the state constitution by 55 percent of the state’s voters in 1996. But the proposed repeal of the prohibition against racial preferences was rejected this month by a larger margin of 57 percent to 43 percent.

The Left imagines a world where the "unwashed" are ever moving toward their racialist views, in reality, over the last 25 years, the net movement is just as against their racializing silos as it was a quarter century ago, even more so.

"Trumpism" isn't about Trump, it's about equal treatment.

What makes this remarkable is that California has drifted far to the left since 1996 — Bill Clinton carried it for president by only 13 points that year. Joe Biden won the state by just under 30 points this year.

A new post-election survey called the California Community Poll and run by the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley provides some answers. It was conducted on behalf of some groups favoring Proposition 16 who couldn’t understand why they lost. It makes for fascinating reading.

"Everyone" was for Prop 16. Virtually the entire political and media establishment endorsed it. The state’s Democrat attorney general produced a ballot summary biased in favor of the measure. Major corporate and labor-union donations allowed proponents to spend $23 million. Opponents spent only $1.8 million and had zero money for television ads.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the results of this David vs. Goliath struggle as follows: “The findings of the survey provide the clearest evidence so far of the disconnect between those political leaders and many of their ostensible followers.” While there is widespread support for diversity and outreach to minority groups among the general public, the California Community at the same time found “broad skepticism about allowing government officials to use race, ethnicity or gender in making decisions.”

That skepticism extended across racial groups. Among Latinos, only 30 percent said Proposition 16 was a good idea, compared with 41 percent who called it a bad idea. Among Asian respondents, 35 percent called the proposition a good idea while 46 percent saying it was a bad idea. Whites were only slightly more opposed, with 32 percent thinking Prop 16 was a good idea and 53 percent a bad idea.

Proposition 16 was backed by a majority of African Americans. But only 56 percent of them called it a good idea, 19 percent said it was a bad idea, and a surprisingly high 25 percent weren’t sure.

The survey included the fascinating finding that immigrants were more opposed to racial quotas than native-born Americans were. “Many immigrants came to this country for equal opportunities” and are suspicious about preferences for specific groups, Charlie Woo, the board chairman of an Asian economic empowerment group, told the Los Angeles Times.

The White affluent Left presumes that they can build a coalition with resentful minorities, only to find that minorities want the same thing the rest of us do, equality before the law.

“The stunning defeat of Prop 16 sent a powerful national message that voters viewed the use of race as divisive, even toxic,”

"Progressives" in Washington State are already planning to put a measure on the ballot in 2022 to repeal that state’s ban on racial preferences. They already lost a similar attempt in 2019, when voters statewide rejected the idea despite massive infusions of campaign money from left-wing groups.

These folks are incapable of learning.

In CA Democrats lost two congressional seats in Orange County because Prop 16 was on the ballot. Republicans Michelle Steel and Young Kim, two Korean Americans, ousted liberal incumbents, with each getting 51 percent of the vote. Proposition 16 brought Asian voters who opposed it to the polls, and they then supported her and other candidates who also opposed it.

Leftists’ attempt to repeal bans on racial preferences in Washington State bring to mind the situation after workers revolted in East Germany in 1953, what their pigheaded Communist leaders really wanted was “to dissolve the people and elect another.”

There was a time when liberals learned from their political overreach. For example, after gun control cost them the House in 1994, they didn't try to reimpose it after they finally recaptured the House in 2006.

Even a flatworm will turn from pain, it's not currently clear that the racialist Left is as smart as a flatworm.

trumpism is NOT about "equal treatment" its about grievance politics

Fake News. Trumpism isn't even about Trump. Everything is about equal treatment. The Left is against it as clearly evidenced by their all out war on the First Amendment.

BIG TECH OCCUPIES THE UNITED STATES: “Big Tech has infiltrated the American homeland and is imposing speech laws that resemble those of Europe, challenging the authority and longevity of the First Amendment.”

We are the longest surviving liberal democracy, a feat enabled by our unique approach to human rights. Big Tech’s speech codes cannot be allowed to inflict American citizens in American jurisdictions. If the would-be "progressive" monarchs of Silicon Valley get their way, their speech codes will undermine our American values of free speech and the First Amendment.

A Tale of Two Speeches

In America, the First Amendment expresses an absolutist viewpoint on speech:

“Congress shall make no law...”​

From there, the courts have developed a framework that governs speech. Not all speech is “protected” speech and we have standards that determine if, when, where, and how the government can limit speech. American speech law begins at that intransigent right:

“Congress shall make no law.”​

This principle permeates the American mindset and is defended by our written and entrenched Constitution.

Europe begins from a qualified position and immediately seeks to balance speech with other competing interests. European law begins with the assumption that speech is a privilege, the contours of which can be defined and redefined by the government. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights makes this clear.

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers….​

This sounds good until you read the second paragraph:

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (emphasis added)​

The blunt fact is that Europeans have freedom of speech at the discretion of their governments. Government decides what speech restrictions are “necessary in a democratic society”! The European crusade against hate speech (a label applied to any disfavored speech) is a perfect example of the abuse that flourishes when free speech is nothing more than a discretionary standard subject to majority votes of prevailing legislatures.

In the United Kingdom when ‘insulting’ was included in the hate speech law “arrests and prosecutions ranged from an Oxford student asking a police officer ‘Do you realise your horse is gay?’ which Thames Valley police described as homophobic and ‘offensive to people passing by’, to a 16-year-old holding up a placard that said ‘Scientology is a dangerous cult’.” Hate speech can mean almost anything, and in 2018, British police were rounding up and questioning people for tweets that criticized gender reassignment surgeries for children. As the culture slips, standards that can be amended by majority legislatures do not defend speech rights.

The United States Constitution’s protection of speech has no tempering clause. Our court-created frameworks all seek to implement and obey the opening, sweeping directive of the First Amendment; we do not recognize a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment; and our speech rights are certainly not at the mercy of every successive Congress’s whim. We can truly boast speech rights—and the ability to assert those rights against our government.

So, once again you miss what you are immersed in because you are willfully blinded by your own false sense of moral superiority.

 

[Nosmo King]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

He is a lying conman who only cares about himself.

What did he lie about? Specifics, please.

A hurricane will hit Alabama. The Russians said they didn't interfere with the American 2016 elections. The coronavirus is merely the flu. He won the election. Canada poses a strategic threat to our economy and security. He will place control of his holdings in the hands of Eric and Donny jr.

 

[otto105]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

They don't actually hate Trump, they hate us. That's not changing. If anyone fell for the ploy that if we fed them Trump that they would let up on us, let me disabuse you of that right now. They live to express their hate, and they aren't real bright, just very determined and relentless.

DEMOCRATS SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT: By putting Proposition 16 on the ballot, California’s deep-blue legislators help elected Republicans Michelle Park Steel and Young Kim to Congress. Washington State’s Democrats may want to take note.

Narrator's voice: WA State Democrats will not take note.

Golden State voters — and especially immigrants — overwhelmingly rejected racial preferences.

They voted for Trumpism, even as they rejected Trump.

Progressive groups were shocked on Election Day by the fate of Proposition 16 in California.

Prop 16 would have amended the California Constitution and repealed the prohibition against preferential treatment based on race. That prohibition was put into the state constitution by 55 percent of the state’s voters in 1996. But the proposed repeal of the prohibition against racial preferences was rejected this month by a larger margin of 57 percent to 43 percent.

The Left imagines a world where the "unwashed" are ever moving toward their racialist views, in reality, over the last 25 years, the net movement is just as against their racializing silos as it was a quarter century ago, even more so.

"Trumpism" isn't about Trump, it's about equal treatment.

What makes this remarkable is that California has drifted far to the left since 1996 — Bill Clinton carried it for president by only 13 points that year. Joe Biden won the state by just under 30 points this year.

A new post-election survey called the California Community Poll and run by the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley provides some answers. It was conducted on behalf of some groups favoring Proposition 16 who couldn’t understand why they lost. It makes for fascinating reading.

"Everyone" was for Prop 16. Virtually the entire political and media establishment endorsed it. The state’s Democrat attorney general produced a ballot summary biased in favor of the measure. Major corporate and labor-union donations allowed proponents to spend $23 million. Opponents spent only $1.8 million and had zero money for television ads.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the results of this David vs. Goliath struggle as follows: “The findings of the survey provide the clearest evidence so far of the disconnect between those political leaders and many of their ostensible followers.” While there is widespread support for diversity and outreach to minority groups among the general public, the California Community at the same time found “broad skepticism about allowing government officials to use race, ethnicity or gender in making decisions.”

That skepticism extended across racial groups. Among Latinos, only 30 percent said Proposition 16 was a good idea, compared with 41 percent who called it a bad idea. Among Asian respondents, 35 percent called the proposition a good idea while 46 percent saying it was a bad idea. Whites were only slightly more opposed, with 32 percent thinking Prop 16 was a good idea and 53 percent a bad idea.

Proposition 16 was backed by a majority of African Americans. But only 56 percent of them called it a good idea, 19 percent said it was a bad idea, and a surprisingly high 25 percent weren’t sure.

The survey included the fascinating finding that immigrants were more opposed to racial quotas than native-born Americans were. “Many immigrants came to this country for equal opportunities” and are suspicious about preferences for specific groups, Charlie Woo, the board chairman of an Asian economic empowerment group, told the Los Angeles Times.

The White affluent Left presumes that they can build a coalition with resentful minorities, only to find that minorities want the same thing the rest of us do, equality before the law.

“The stunning defeat of Prop 16 sent a powerful national message that voters viewed the use of race as divisive, even toxic,”

"Progressives" in Washington State are already planning to put a measure on the ballot in 2022 to repeal that state’s ban on racial preferences. They already lost a similar attempt in 2019, when voters statewide rejected the idea despite massive infusions of campaign money from left-wing groups.

These folks are incapable of learning.

In CA Democrats lost two congressional seats in Orange County because Prop 16 was on the ballot. Republicans Michelle Steel and Young Kim, two Korean Americans, ousted liberal incumbents, with each getting 51 percent of the vote. Proposition 16 brought Asian voters who opposed it to the polls, and they then supported her and other candidates who also opposed it.

Leftists’ attempt to repeal bans on racial preferences in Washington State bring to mind the situation after workers revolted in East Germany in 1953, what their pigheaded Communist leaders really wanted was “to dissolve the people and elect another.”

There was a time when liberals learned from their political overreach. For example, after gun control cost them the House in 1994, they didn't try to reimpose it after they finally recaptured the House in 2006.

Even a flatworm will turn from pain, it's not currently clear that the racialist Left is as smart as a flatworm.

trumpism is NOT about "equal treatment" its about grievance politics

Fake News. Trumpism isn't even about Trump. Everything is about equal treatment. The Left is against it as clearly evidenced by their all out war on the First Amendment.

BIG TECH OCCUPIES THE UNITED STATES: “Big Tech has infiltrated the American homeland and is imposing speech laws that resemble those of Europe, challenging the authority and longevity of the First Amendment.”

We are the longest surviving liberal democracy, a feat enabled by our unique approach to human rights. Big Tech’s speech codes cannot be allowed to inflict American citizens in American jurisdictions. If the would-be "progressive" monarchs of Silicon Valley get their way, their speech codes will undermine our American values of free speech and the First Amendment.

A Tale of Two Speeches

In America, the First Amendment expresses an absolutist viewpoint on speech:

“Congress shall make no law...”​

From there, the courts have developed a framework that governs speech. Not all speech is “protected” speech and we have standards that determine if, when, where, and how the government can limit speech. American speech law begins at that intransigent right:

“Congress shall make no law.”​

This principle permeates the American mindset and is defended by our written and entrenched Constitution.

Europe begins from a qualified position and immediately seeks to balance speech with other competing interests. European law begins with the assumption that speech is a privilege, the contours of which can be defined and redefined by the government. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights makes this clear.

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers….​

This sounds good until you read the second paragraph:

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (emphasis added)​

The blunt fact is that Europeans have freedom of speech at the discretion of their governments. Government decides what speech restrictions are “necessary in a democratic society”! The European crusade against hate speech (a label applied to any disfavored speech) is a perfect example of the abuse that flourishes when free speech is nothing more than a discretionary standard subject to majority votes of prevailing legislatures.

In the United Kingdom when ‘insulting’ was included in the hate speech law “arrests and prosecutions ranged from an Oxford student asking a police officer ‘Do you realise your horse is gay?’ which Thames Valley police described as homophobic and ‘offensive to people passing by’, to a 16-year-old holding up a placard that said ‘Scientology is a dangerous cult’.” Hate speech can mean almost anything, and in 2018, British police were rounding up and questioning people for tweets that criticized gender reassignment surgeries for children. As the culture slips, standards that can be amended by majority legislatures do not defend speech rights.

The United States Constitution’s protection of speech has no tempering clause. Our court-created frameworks all seek to implement and obey the opening, sweeping directive of the First Amendment; we do not recognize a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment; and our speech rights are certainly not at the mercy of every successive Congress’s whim. We can truly boast speech rights—and the ability to assert those rights against our government.

So, once again you miss what you are immersed in because you are willfully blinded by your own false sense of moral superiority.

Of course we have a "tempering" affect to speech. Can one yell fire in a crowded movie house? Can one use speech to incite violence?

You conservatives are just pissed that big tech won't be complicit in your falsehood spread. Better yet, go on the free republic and post that Biden won the election and see how fast your speech is banned.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Unfortunately"? The question put to us in this thread is why we hate Trump. It is pretty self apparent that hate is a feeling and so what's to be proven here?

I guess I was hoping someone would explain on what basis Trump haters get their feelings of hatred toward the man.

It's because they're told to.

Cognizance isn't a Leftist ability.

 

[Zorro!]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

It's the battle between the Snobs and Slobs. The entitled Middle Class fears the Working Middle Class and they routinely employ an array of tribalist cues that promote their "superiority" while assuring themselves what they view as the "upper middleclass" rightly views the "lower" middleclass as slobs.

Trump committed the sin of rejecting the snobs and embracing the "slobs". They will never forgive him for this.

Wow, way to establish the fact that YOU consider yourself a lower educated second class person...

Wow way to go F yourself. I do not used these "upper" and "lower" classifications of any human beings.

... Do you consider white rural young adults who chose to go to college and live in large cities with a diploma, diversity and density a traitor to the lower educated rural folks?

Your comments are so incongruent with mine that I have serious concerns that your skull may not currently be in the most advantageous positioning vs your lower intestine.

Correct that, re-read my post, then try again.

I get that you're butthurt.

But your classifications of "slobs" verses "snobs" using elitism I quite understand. You're a deplorable either own it or stop playing the victim over it.

I'm not butthurt at all. Your self-righteous take was so off-point that that there was no way for us to use it as a meaningful starting point. If you don't wish to understand the issue, what do I care? You have the right to your ignorance if that's your choice.

Your proving my point that you consider your political position to be that of the underclass railing against "elites". Elites being urban, educated and different than you.

Fake News. Indoctrination does not improve life skills, in fact, it deteriorates them. Their insecurity stems

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

It's the battle between the Snobs and Slobs. The entitled Middle Class fears the Working Middle Class and they routinely employ an array of tribalist cues that promote their "superiority" while assuring themselves what they view as the "upper middleclass" rightly views the "lower" middleclass as slobs.

Trump committed the sin of rejecting the snobs and embracing the "slobs". They will never forgive him for this.

Wow, way to establish the fact that YOU consider yourself a lower educated second class person...

Wow way to go F yourself. I do not used these "upper" and "lower" classifications of any human beings.

... Do you consider white rural young adults who chose to go to college and live in large cities with a diploma, diversity and density a traitor to the lower educated rural folks?

Your comments are so incongruent with mine that I have serious concerns that your skull may not currently be in the most advantageous positioning vs your lower intestine.

Correct that, re-read my post, then try again.

I get that you're butthurt.

But your classifications of "slobs" verses "snobs" using elitism I quite understand. You're a deplorable either own it or stop playing the victim over it.

I'm not butthurt at all. Your self-righteous take was so off-point that that there was no way for us to use it as a meaningful starting point. If you don't wish to understand the issue, what do I care? You have the right to your ignorance if that's your choice.

Your proving my point that you consider your political position to be that of the underclass railing against "elites". Elites being urban, educated and different than you.

You pretty much suck at at mind reading, and no, I have no use for snobs. I find them to be rather divisive and, at best, merely useless.

In your words, what is a "snob"?

I'm pretty sure you don't go to bubba at the other end of the tavern to check on your anal cist.

Your vulgarity aside, training in observations of anal cysts (learn to spell) does not make one inherently more deserving of the full complement of human rights than any other.

Take for example the Left's embrace of Big Tech Censorship in their relentless attack on our First Amendment.

The Big Tech internal speech codes are just like Europe’s broad, discretionary standards in that they permit a privileged few to determine what is and is not offensive or “dangerous” speech. For example, Facebook bans “hate speech,” including “white nationalist rhetoric” and “violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation,” as well as other categories of offensive speech. Although this type of speech policing is contrary to the American principle that we have the liberty to offend, these definitions might sound otherwise uncontroversial and even attractive (after all, most decent people don’t want to be exposed to violent or dehumanizing speech). But, in addition to offending our spirit of free speech generally, the application of these standards has already proven to be both broad and biased, permitting companies to label all manner of political socially-conservative speech as dangerous or violent. There is wisdom and authentic freedom in America’s adherence to robust and “absolutist” protection of speech; there is opportunity for corruption, bias, and suffocating censorship lurking in the European approach.

Big Tech has effectively imported European speech law into the United States. Big Tech has created a massive internal framework that blankets the nation and imposes European-style standards in direct opposition to the robust, absolutist American rule.

Because Tech oligarchs control the primary thoroughfares of public discourse today—our new public squares of the digital age—they have effectively occupied our country and imposed foreign law on American citizens, restricting our fundamental liberty to gather and to exchange thoughts and ideas freely.

Justice Scalia once remarked, “many Europeans like to think of Americans as their close cousins—albeit reckless, loudmouthed cousins they’re embarrassed to talk about at dinner parties. It is easy to forget, however, that the United States was settled primarily by people seeking, in one way or another, refuge from the ways of Europe.” Our freedoms are not equal.

Europe’s speech standards leave Europeans at the mercy of their ruling class. In America, the First Amendment (and the attitude it embodies), continues to provide Americans the strongest speech rights of any people on earth. Big Tech and the Left cannot be allowed to impose European speech codes in digital public squares within American jurisdictions.

You'll keep losing. We Americans understand that the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.

 

[Zorro!]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

They don't actually hate Trump, they hate us. That's not changing. If anyone fell for the ploy that if we fed them Trump that they would let up on us, let me disabuse you of that right now. They live to express their hate, and they aren't real bright, just very determined and relentless.

DEMOCRATS SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT: By putting Proposition 16 on the ballot, California’s deep-blue legislators help elected Republicans Michelle Park Steel and Young Kim to Congress. Washington State’s Democrats may want to take note.

Narrator's voice: WA State Democrats will not take note.

Golden State voters — and especially immigrants — overwhelmingly rejected racial preferences.

They voted for Trumpism, even as they rejected Trump.

Progressive groups were shocked on Election Day by the fate of Proposition 16 in California.

Prop 16 would have amended the California Constitution and repealed the prohibition against preferential treatment based on race. That prohibition was put into the state constitution by 55 percent of the state’s voters in 1996. But the proposed repeal of the prohibition against racial preferences was rejected this month by a larger margin of 57 percent to 43 percent.

The Left imagines a world where the "unwashed" are ever moving toward their racialist views, in reality, over the last 25 years, the net movement is just as against their racializing silos as it was a quarter century ago, even more so.

"Trumpism" isn't about Trump, it's about equal treatment.

What makes this remarkable is that California has drifted far to the left since 1996 — Bill Clinton carried it for president by only 13 points that year. Joe Biden won the state by just under 30 points this year.

A new post-election survey called the California Community Poll and run by the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley provides some answers. It was conducted on behalf of some groups favoring Proposition 16 who couldn’t understand why they lost. It makes for fascinating reading.

"Everyone" was for Prop 16. Virtually the entire political and media establishment endorsed it. The state’s Democrat attorney general produced a ballot summary biased in favor of the measure. Major corporate and labor-union donations allowed proponents to spend $23 million. Opponents spent only $1.8 million and had zero money for television ads.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the results of this David vs. Goliath struggle as follows: “The findings of the survey provide the clearest evidence so far of the disconnect between those political leaders and many of their ostensible followers.” While there is widespread support for diversity and outreach to minority groups among the general public, the California Community at the same time found “broad skepticism about allowing government officials to use race, ethnicity or gender in making decisions.”

That skepticism extended across racial groups. Among Latinos, only 30 percent said Proposition 16 was a good idea, compared with 41 percent who called it a bad idea. Among Asian respondents, 35 percent called the proposition a good idea while 46 percent saying it was a bad idea. Whites were only slightly more opposed, with 32 percent thinking Prop 16 was a good idea and 53 percent a bad idea.

Proposition 16 was backed by a majority of African Americans. But only 56 percent of them called it a good idea, 19 percent said it was a bad idea, and a surprisingly high 25 percent weren’t sure.

The survey included the fascinating finding that immigrants were more opposed to racial quotas than native-born Americans were. “Many immigrants came to this country for equal opportunities” and are suspicious about preferences for specific groups, Charlie Woo, the board chairman of an Asian economic empowerment group, told the Los Angeles Times.

The White affluent Left presumes that they can build a coalition with resentful minorities, only to find that minorities want the same thing the rest of us do, equality before the law.

“The stunning defeat of Prop 16 sent a powerful national message that voters viewed the use of race as divisive, even toxic,”

"Progressives" in Washington State are already planning to put a measure on the ballot in 2022 to repeal that state’s ban on racial preferences. They already lost a similar attempt in 2019, when voters statewide rejected the idea despite massive infusions of campaign money from left-wing groups.

These folks are incapable of learning.

In CA Democrats lost two congressional seats in Orange County because Prop 16 was on the ballot. Republicans Michelle Steel and Young Kim, two Korean Americans, ousted liberal incumbents, with each getting 51 percent of the vote. Proposition 16 brought Asian voters who opposed it to the polls, and they then supported her and other candidates who also opposed it.

Leftists’ attempt to repeal bans on racial preferences in Washington State bring to mind the situation after workers revolted in East Germany in 1953, what their pigheaded Communist leaders really wanted was “to dissolve the people and elect another.”

There was a time when liberals learned from their political overreach. For example, after gun control cost them the House in 1994, they didn't try to reimpose it after they finally recaptured the House in 2006.

Even a flatworm will turn from pain, it's not currently clear that the racialist Left is as smart as a flatworm.

trumpism is NOT about "equal treatment" its about grievance politics

Fake News. Trumpism isn't even about Trump. Everything is about equal treatment. The Left is against it as clearly evidenced by their all out war on the First Amendment.

BIG TECH OCCUPIES THE UNITED STATES: “Big Tech has infiltrated the American homeland and is imposing speech laws that resemble those of Europe, challenging the authority and longevity of the First Amendment.”

We are the longest surviving liberal democracy, a feat enabled by our unique approach to human rights. Big Tech’s speech codes cannot be allowed to inflict American citizens in American jurisdictions. If the would-be "progressive" monarchs of Silicon Valley get their way, their speech codes will undermine our American values of free speech and the First Amendment.

A Tale of Two Speeches

In America, the First Amendment expresses an absolutist viewpoint on speech:

“Congress shall make no law...”​

From there, the courts have developed a framework that governs speech. Not all speech is “protected” speech and we have standards that determine if, when, where, and how the government can limit speech. American speech law begins at that intransigent right:

“Congress shall make no law.”​

This principle permeates the American mindset and is defended by our written and entrenched Constitution.

Europe begins from a qualified position and immediately seeks to balance speech with other competing interests. European law begins with the assumption that speech is a privilege, the contours of which can be defined and redefined by the government. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights makes this clear.

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers….​

This sounds good until you read the second paragraph:

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (emphasis added)​

The blunt fact is that Europeans have freedom of speech at the discretion of their governments. Government decides what speech restrictions are “necessary in a democratic society”! The European crusade against hate speech (a label applied to any disfavored speech) is a perfect example of the abuse that flourishes when free speech is nothing more than a discretionary standard subject to majority votes of prevailing legislatures.

In the United Kingdom when ‘insulting’ was included in the hate speech law “arrests and prosecutions ranged from an Oxford student asking a police officer ‘Do you realise your horse is gay?’ which Thames Valley police described as homophobic and ‘offensive to people passing by’, to a 16-year-old holding up a placard that said ‘Scientology is a dangerous cult’.” Hate speech can mean almost anything, and in 2018, British police were rounding up and questioning people for tweets that criticized gender reassignment surgeries for children. As the culture slips, standards that can be amended by majority legislatures do not defend speech rights.

The United States Constitution’s protection of speech has no tempering clause. Our court-created frameworks all seek to implement and obey the opening, sweeping directive of the First Amendment; we do not recognize a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment; and our speech rights are certainly not at the mercy of every successive Congress’s whim. We can truly boast speech rights—and the ability to assert those rights against our government.

So, once again you miss what you are immersed in because you are willfully blinded by your own false sense of moral superiority.

Of course we have a "tempering" affect to speech. Can one yell fire in a crowded movie house? Can one use speech to incite violence?

You conservatives are just pissed that big tech won't be complicit in your falsehood spread. Better yet, go on the free republic and post that Biden won the election and see how fast your speech is banned.

The antidote to false speech isn't censorship, it's more free speech. You're confused about why you keep losing, I'm simply explaining Americans to you. Once you understand Americans, you'll also understand that we will be respected, and once you understand that your frustration will give way to a much healthier wave of admiration. Until then, the ass kickings will continue, we secure our Liberty not just for ourselves, but for our Posterity.

 

[BlackSand]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

Because the Media told them to ... And they are a bit narrowminded.
They will talk about facts and objectivity, as it has been presented to them.

They have no idea what President Trump has done.
They could tell you more about Representative Ocasio-Cortez and the Squad than anything the President has done.

They got punked by Friday afternoon tweets for 4 years and never figured out,
it was to give the nit-wits with coffee mugs at the networks something to squeal about all weekend.

Meanwhile ... President Trump just kept on going.

.

 

[otto105]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

It's the battle between the Snobs and Slobs. The entitled Middle Class fears the Working Middle Class and they routinely employ an array of tribalist cues that promote their "superiority" while assuring themselves what they view as the "upper middleclass" rightly views the "lower" middleclass as slobs.

Trump committed the sin of rejecting the snobs and embracing the "slobs". They will never forgive him for this.

Wow, way to establish the fact that YOU consider yourself a lower educated second class person...

Wow way to go F yourself. I do not used these "upper" and "lower" classifications of any human beings.

... Do you consider white rural young adults who chose to go to college and live in large cities with a diploma, diversity and density a traitor to the lower educated rural folks?

Your comments are so incongruent with mine that I have serious concerns that your skull may not currently be in the most advantageous positioning vs your lower intestine.

Correct that, re-read my post, then try again.

I get that you're butthurt.

But your classifications of "slobs" verses "snobs" using elitism I quite understand. You're a deplorable either own it or stop playing the victim over it.

I'm not butthurt at all. Your self-righteous take was so off-point that that there was no way for us to use it as a meaningful starting point. If you don't wish to understand the issue, what do I care? You have the right to your ignorance if that's your choice.

Your proving my point that you consider your political position to be that of the underclass railing against "elites". Elites being urban, educated and different than you.

Fake News. Indoctrination does not improve life skills, in fact, it deteriorates them. Their insecurity stems

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

It's the battle between the Snobs and Slobs. The entitled Middle Class fears the Working Middle Class and they routinely employ an array of tribalist cues that promote their "superiority" while assuring themselves what they view as the "upper middleclass" rightly views the "lower" middleclass as slobs.

Trump committed the sin of rejecting the snobs and embracing the "slobs". They will never forgive him for this.

Wow, way to establish the fact that YOU consider yourself a lower educated second class person...

Wow way to go F yourself. I do not used these "upper" and "lower" classifications of any human beings.

... Do you consider white rural young adults who chose to go to college and live in large cities with a diploma, diversity and density a traitor to the lower educated rural folks?

Your comments are so incongruent with mine that I have serious concerns that your skull may not currently be in the most advantageous positioning vs your lower intestine.

Correct that, re-read my post, then try again.

I get that you're butthurt.

But your classifications of "slobs" verses "snobs" using elitism I quite understand. You're a deplorable either own it or stop playing the victim over it.

I'm not butthurt at all. Your self-righteous take was so off-point that that there was no way for us to use it as a meaningful starting point. If you don't wish to understand the issue, what do I care? You have the right to your ignorance if that's your choice.

Your proving my point that you consider your political position to be that of the underclass railing against "elites". Elites being urban, educated and different than you.

You pretty much suck at at mind reading, and no, I have no use for snobs. I find them to be rather divisive and, at best, merely useless.

In your words, what is a "snob"?

I'm pretty sure you don't go to bubba at the other end of the tavern to check on your anal cist.

Your vulgarity aside, training in observations of anal cysts (learn to spell) does not make one inherently more deserving of the full complement of human rights than any other.

Take for example the Left's embrace of Big Tech Censorship in their relentless attack on our First Amendment.

The Big Tech internal speech codes are just like Europe’s broad, discretionary standards in that they permit a privileged few to determine what is and is not offensive or “dangerous” speech. For example, Facebook bans “hate speech,” including “white nationalist rhetoric” and “violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation,” as well as other categories of offensive speech. Although this type of speech policing is contrary to the American principle that we have the liberty to offend, these definitions might sound otherwise uncontroversial and even attractive (after all, most decent people don’t want to be exposed to violent or dehumanizing speech). But, in addition to offending our spirit of free speech generally, the application of these standards has already proven to be both broad and biased, permitting companies to label all manner of political socially-conservative speech as dangerous or violent. There is wisdom and authentic freedom in America’s adherence to robust and “absolutist” protection of speech; there is opportunity for corruption, bias, and suffocating censorship lurking in the European approach.

Big Tech has effectively imported European speech law into the United States. Big Tech has created a massive internal framework that blankets the nation and imposes European-style standards in direct opposition to the robust, absolutist American rule.

Because Tech oligarchs control the primary thoroughfares of public discourse today—our new public squares of the digital age—they have effectively occupied our country and imposed foreign law on American citizens, restricting our fundamental liberty to gather and to exchange thoughts and ideas freely.

Justice Scalia once remarked, “many Europeans like to think of Americans as their close cousins—albeit reckless, loudmouthed cousins they’re embarrassed to talk about at dinner parties. It is easy to forget, however, that the United States was settled primarily by people seeking, in one way or another, refuge from the ways of Europe.” Our freedoms are not equal.

Europe’s speech standards leave Europeans at the mercy of their ruling class. In America, the First Amendment (and the attitude it embodies), continues to provide Americans the strongest speech rights of any people on earth. Big Tech and the Left cannot be allowed to impose European speech codes in digital public squares within American jurisdictions.

You'll keep losing. We Americans understand that the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.

I think that you don't understand right to offend with the right to incite a guy to shoot up a pizza joint. Your appreciation for free speech just includes Big Tech's acquiesce to your message rather than support of Larry Flint.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's completely and solely his face! I could never have imagined a president with a face like that!

 

[otto105]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

They don't actually hate Trump, they hate us. That's not changing. If anyone fell for the ploy that if we fed them Trump that they would let up on us, let me disabuse you of that right now. They live to express their hate, and they aren't real bright, just very determined and relentless.

DEMOCRATS SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT: By putting Proposition 16 on the ballot, California’s deep-blue legislators help elected Republicans Michelle Park Steel and Young Kim to Congress. Washington State’s Democrats may want to take note.

Narrator's voice: WA State Democrats will not take note.

Golden State voters — and especially immigrants — overwhelmingly rejected racial preferences.

They voted for Trumpism, even as they rejected Trump.

Progressive groups were shocked on Election Day by the fate of Proposition 16 in California.

Prop 16 would have amended the California Constitution and repealed the prohibition against preferential treatment based on race. That prohibition was put into the state constitution by 55 percent of the state’s voters in 1996. But the proposed repeal of the prohibition against racial preferences was rejected this month by a larger margin of 57 percent to 43 percent.

The Left imagines a world where the "unwashed" are ever moving toward their racialist views, in reality, over the last 25 years, the net movement is just as against their racializing silos as it was a quarter century ago, even more so.

"Trumpism" isn't about Trump, it's about equal treatment.

What makes this remarkable is that California has drifted far to the left since 1996 — Bill Clinton carried it for president by only 13 points that year. Joe Biden won the state by just under 30 points this year.

A new post-election survey called the California Community Poll and run by the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley provides some answers. It was conducted on behalf of some groups favoring Proposition 16 who couldn’t understand why they lost. It makes for fascinating reading.

"Everyone" was for Prop 16. Virtually the entire political and media establishment endorsed it. The state’s Democrat attorney general produced a ballot summary biased in favor of the measure. Major corporate and labor-union donations allowed proponents to spend $23 million. Opponents spent only $1.8 million and had zero money for television ads.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the results of this David vs. Goliath struggle as follows: “The findings of the survey provide the clearest evidence so far of the disconnect between those political leaders and many of their ostensible followers.” While there is widespread support for diversity and outreach to minority groups among the general public, the California Community at the same time found “broad skepticism about allowing government officials to use race, ethnicity or gender in making decisions.”

That skepticism extended across racial groups. Among Latinos, only 30 percent said Proposition 16 was a good idea, compared with 41 percent who called it a bad idea. Among Asian respondents, 35 percent called the proposition a good idea while 46 percent saying it was a bad idea. Whites were only slightly more opposed, with 32 percent thinking Prop 16 was a good idea and 53 percent a bad idea.

Proposition 16 was backed by a majority of African Americans. But only 56 percent of them called it a good idea, 19 percent said it was a bad idea, and a surprisingly high 25 percent weren’t sure.

The survey included the fascinating finding that immigrants were more opposed to racial quotas than native-born Americans were. “Many immigrants came to this country for equal opportunities” and are suspicious about preferences for specific groups, Charlie Woo, the board chairman of an Asian economic empowerment group, told the Los Angeles Times.

The White affluent Left presumes that they can build a coalition with resentful minorities, only to find that minorities want the same thing the rest of us do, equality before the law.

“The stunning defeat of Prop 16 sent a powerful national message that voters viewed the use of race as divisive, even toxic,”

"Progressives" in Washington State are already planning to put a measure on the ballot in 2022 to repeal that state’s ban on racial preferences. They already lost a similar attempt in 2019, when voters statewide rejected the idea despite massive infusions of campaign money from left-wing groups.

These folks are incapable of learning.

In CA Democrats lost two congressional seats in Orange County because Prop 16 was on the ballot. Republicans Michelle Steel and Young Kim, two Korean Americans, ousted liberal incumbents, with each getting 51 percent of the vote. Proposition 16 brought Asian voters who opposed it to the polls, and they then supported her and other candidates who also opposed it.

Leftists’ attempt to repeal bans on racial preferences in Washington State bring to mind the situation after workers revolted in East Germany in 1953, what their pigheaded Communist leaders really wanted was “to dissolve the people and elect another.”

There was a time when liberals learned from their political overreach. For example, after gun control cost them the House in 1994, they didn't try to reimpose it after they finally recaptured the House in 2006.

Even a flatworm will turn from pain, it's not currently clear that the racialist Left is as smart as a flatworm.

trumpism is NOT about "equal treatment" its about grievance politics

Fake News. Trumpism isn't even about Trump. Everything is about equal treatment. The Left is against it as clearly evidenced by their all out war on the First Amendment.

BIG TECH OCCUPIES THE UNITED STATES: “Big Tech has infiltrated the American homeland and is imposing speech laws that resemble those of Europe, challenging the authority and longevity of the First Amendment.”

We are the longest surviving liberal democracy, a feat enabled by our unique approach to human rights. Big Tech’s speech codes cannot be allowed to inflict American citizens in American jurisdictions. If the would-be "progressive" monarchs of Silicon Valley get their way, their speech codes will undermine our American values of free speech and the First Amendment.

A Tale of Two Speeches

In America, the First Amendment expresses an absolutist viewpoint on speech:

“Congress shall make no law...”​

From there, the courts have developed a framework that governs speech. Not all speech is “protected” speech and we have standards that determine if, when, where, and how the government can limit speech. American speech law begins at that intransigent right:

“Congress shall make no law.”​

This principle permeates the American mindset and is defended by our written and entrenched Constitution.

Europe begins from a qualified position and immediately seeks to balance speech with other competing interests. European law begins with the assumption that speech is a privilege, the contours of which can be defined and redefined by the government. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights makes this clear.

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers….​

This sounds good until you read the second paragraph:

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (emphasis added)​

The blunt fact is that Europeans have freedom of speech at the discretion of their governments. Government decides what speech restrictions are “necessary in a democratic society”! The European crusade against hate speech (a label applied to any disfavored speech) is a perfect example of the abuse that flourishes when free speech is nothing more than a discretionary standard subject to majority votes of prevailing legislatures.

In the United Kingdom when ‘insulting’ was included in the hate speech law “arrests and prosecutions ranged from an Oxford student asking a police officer ‘Do you realise your horse is gay?’ which Thames Valley police described as homophobic and ‘offensive to people passing by’, to a 16-year-old holding up a placard that said ‘Scientology is a dangerous cult’.” Hate speech can mean almost anything, and in 2018, British police were rounding up and questioning people for tweets that criticized gender reassignment surgeries for children. As the culture slips, standards that can be amended by majority legislatures do not defend speech rights.

The United States Constitution’s protection of speech has no tempering clause. Our court-created frameworks all seek to implement and obey the opening, sweeping directive of the First Amendment; we do not recognize a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment; and our speech rights are certainly not at the mercy of every successive Congress’s whim. We can truly boast speech rights—and the ability to assert those rights against our government.

So, once again you miss what you are immersed in because you are willfully blinded by your own false sense of moral superiority.

Of course we have a "tempering" affect to speech. Can one yell fire in a crowded movie house? Can one use speech to incite violence?

You conservatives are just pissed that big tech won't be complicit in your falsehood spread. Better yet, go on the free republic and post that Biden won the election and see how fast your speech is banned.

The antidote to false speech isn't censorship, it's more free speech. You're confused about why you keep losing, I'm simply explaining Americans to you. Once you understand Americans, you'll also understand that we will be respected, and once you understand that your frustration will give way to a much healthier wave of admiration. Until then, the ass kickings will continue, we secure our Liberty not just for ourselves, but for our Posterity.

I don't know what the fuck you want to set up as a strawman argument, or what ass kicking you think is happening, but it's you as an idiot conservative that doesn't understand. The spreading of disinformation is cancerous to a thriving Democracy.

BTW I noticed the use of "liberty" rather than democracy since it fits your misguided view that America isn't a Democracy but rather a republic in which a minority can choose the rights of people.

 

[NoNukes]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

He is a lying conman who only cares about himself.

The OP is clearly asking for some honesty. We all know your ridiculous hypocritical excuse. This is a cue to your conducting some self reflection

I stand by what I said. You are ridiculous.

You're a cardboard cutout controlled by DNC talking points

No I have a mind of my own. I am from New York City and have been on to Trump for decades.

 

[Zorro!]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

They don't actually hate Trump, they hate us. That's not changing. If anyone fell for the ploy that if we fed them Trump that they would let up on us, let me disabuse you of that right now. They live to express their hate, and they aren't real bright, just very determined and relentless.

DEMOCRATS SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT: By putting Proposition 16 on the ballot, California’s deep-blue legislators help elected Republicans Michelle Park Steel and Young Kim to Congress. Washington State’s Democrats may want to take note.

Narrator's voice: WA State Democrats will not take note.

Golden State voters — and especially immigrants — overwhelmingly rejected racial preferences.

They voted for Trumpism, even as they rejected Trump.

Progressive groups were shocked on Election Day by the fate of Proposition 16 in California.

Prop 16 would have amended the California Constitution and repealed the prohibition against preferential treatment based on race. That prohibition was put into the state constitution by 55 percent of the state’s voters in 1996. But the proposed repeal of the prohibition against racial preferences was rejected this month by a larger margin of 57 percent to 43 percent.

The Left imagines a world where the "unwashed" are ever moving toward their racialist views, in reality, over the last 25 years, the net movement is just as against their racializing silos as it was a quarter century ago, even more so.

"Trumpism" isn't about Trump, it's about equal treatment.

What makes this remarkable is that California has drifted far to the left since 1996 — Bill Clinton carried it for president by only 13 points that year. Joe Biden won the state by just under 30 points this year.

A new post-election survey called the California Community Poll and run by the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley provides some answers. It was conducted on behalf of some groups favoring Proposition 16 who couldn’t understand why they lost. It makes for fascinating reading.

"Everyone" was for Prop 16. Virtually the entire political and media establishment endorsed it. The state’s Democrat attorney general produced a ballot summary biased in favor of the measure. Major corporate and labor-union donations allowed proponents to spend $23 million. Opponents spent only $1.8 million and had zero money for television ads.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the results of this David vs. Goliath struggle as follows: “The findings of the survey provide the clearest evidence so far of the disconnect between those political leaders and many of their ostensible followers.” While there is widespread support for diversity and outreach to minority groups among the general public, the California Community at the same time found “broad skepticism about allowing government officials to use race, ethnicity or gender in making decisions.”

That skepticism extended across racial groups. Among Latinos, only 30 percent said Proposition 16 was a good idea, compared with 41 percent who called it a bad idea. Among Asian respondents, 35 percent called the proposition a good idea while 46 percent saying it was a bad idea. Whites were only slightly more opposed, with 32 percent thinking Prop 16 was a good idea and 53 percent a bad idea.

Proposition 16 was backed by a majority of African Americans. But only 56 percent of them called it a good idea, 19 percent said it was a bad idea, and a surprisingly high 25 percent weren’t sure.

The survey included the fascinating finding that immigrants were more opposed to racial quotas than native-born Americans were. “Many immigrants came to this country for equal opportunities” and are suspicious about preferences for specific groups, Charlie Woo, the board chairman of an Asian economic empowerment group, told the Los Angeles Times.

The White affluent Left presumes that they can build a coalition with resentful minorities, only to find that minorities want the same thing the rest of us do, equality before the law.

“The stunning defeat of Prop 16 sent a powerful national message that voters viewed the use of race as divisive, even toxic,”

"Progressives" in Washington State are already planning to put a measure on the ballot in 2022 to repeal that state’s ban on racial preferences. They already lost a similar attempt in 2019, when voters statewide rejected the idea despite massive infusions of campaign money from left-wing groups.

These folks are incapable of learning.

In CA Democrats lost two congressional seats in Orange County because Prop 16 was on the ballot. Republicans Michelle Steel and Young Kim, two Korean Americans, ousted liberal incumbents, with each getting 51 percent of the vote. Proposition 16 brought Asian voters who opposed it to the polls, and they then supported her and other candidates who also opposed it.

Leftists’ attempt to repeal bans on racial preferences in Washington State bring to mind the situation after workers revolted in East Germany in 1953, what their pigheaded Communist leaders really wanted was “to dissolve the people and elect another.”

There was a time when liberals learned from their political overreach. For example, after gun control cost them the House in 1994, they didn't try to reimpose it after they finally recaptured the House in 2006.

Even a flatworm will turn from pain, it's not currently clear that the racialist Left is as smart as a flatworm.

trumpism is NOT about "equal treatment" its about grievance politics

Fake News. Trumpism isn't even about Trump. Everything is about equal treatment. The Left is against it as clearly evidenced by their all out war on the First Amendment.

BIG TECH OCCUPIES THE UNITED STATES: “Big Tech has infiltrated the American homeland and is imposing speech laws that resemble those of Europe, challenging the authority and longevity of the First Amendment.”

We are the longest surviving liberal democracy, a feat enabled by our unique approach to human rights. Big Tech’s speech codes cannot be allowed to inflict American citizens in American jurisdictions. If the would-be "progressive" monarchs of Silicon Valley get their way, their speech codes will undermine our American values of free speech and the First Amendment.

A Tale of Two Speeches

In America, the First Amendment expresses an absolutist viewpoint on speech:

“Congress shall make no law...”​

From there, the courts have developed a framework that governs speech. Not all speech is “protected” speech and we have standards that determine if, when, where, and how the government can limit speech. American speech law begins at that intransigent right:

“Congress shall make no law.”​

This principle permeates the American mindset and is defended by our written and entrenched Constitution.

Europe begins from a qualified position and immediately seeks to balance speech with other competing interests. European law begins with the assumption that speech is a privilege, the contours of which can be defined and redefined by the government. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights makes this clear.

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers….​

This sounds good until you read the second paragraph:

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (emphasis added)​

The blunt fact is that Europeans have freedom of speech at the discretion of their governments. Government decides what speech restrictions are “necessary in a democratic society”! The European crusade against hate speech (a label applied to any disfavored speech) is a perfect example of the abuse that flourishes when free speech is nothing more than a discretionary standard subject to majority votes of prevailing legislatures.

In the United Kingdom when ‘insulting’ was included in the hate speech law “arrests and prosecutions ranged from an Oxford student asking a police officer ‘Do you realise your horse is gay?’ which Thames Valley police described as homophobic and ‘offensive to people passing by’, to a 16-year-old holding up a placard that said ‘Scientology is a dangerous cult’.” Hate speech can mean almost anything, and in 2018, British police were rounding up and questioning people for tweets that criticized gender reassignment surgeries for children. As the culture slips, standards that can be amended by majority legislatures do not defend speech rights.

The United States Constitution’s protection of speech has no tempering clause. Our court-created frameworks all seek to implement and obey the opening, sweeping directive of the First Amendment; we do not recognize a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment; and our speech rights are certainly not at the mercy of every successive Congress’s whim. We can truly boast speech rights—and the ability to assert those rights against our government.

So, once again you miss what you are immersed in because you are willfully blinded by your own false sense of moral superiority.

Of course we have a "tempering" affect to speech. Can one yell fire in a crowded movie house? Can one use speech to incite violence?

You conservatives are just pissed that big tech won't be complicit in your falsehood spread. Better yet, go on the free republic and post that Biden won the election and see how fast your speech is banned.

The antidote to false speech isn't censorship, it's more free speech. You're confused about why you keep losing, I'm simply explaining Americans to you. Once you understand Americans, you'll also understand that we will be respected, and once you understand that your frustration will give way to a much healthier wave of admiration. Until then, the ass kickings will continue, we secure our Liberty not just for ourselves, but for our Posterity.

I don't know what the fuck you want to set up as a strawman argument, or what ass kicking you think is happening...

You guys were badly whipped the the last election. All the effort to steal the election and you lost everything else, from several House seats to the critical State legislative seats that you needed in order to draw the election maps that will be used for the next ten years. All you got was Lame Duck illegitimate Biden who will accomplish next to nothing between now and when the 2022 election when Dems lose control of the House. And then because everyone moving out of Blue States in favor of Red States, do you ever wonder what that is all about? You'll lose 7 ECV in the 2024 election.

... it's you as an idiot conservative that doesn't understand...

You don't even know how to spell cyst. It's always sad when snobs put airs and then misspell simple one syllable words.

... The spreading of disinformation is cancerous to a thriving Democracy...

The solution to disinformation is even more freedom, not censorship. You see, you clowns claim everything you disagree with is disinformation, which is why the Obama government argued, in court, that they had the right to ban books. Things like that, if you were in your right mind, would shock you out of your fascistic ways, but, you are part of a cult and you have sealed yourself off from sensible feedback that would shock you back into your senses.

... BTW I noticed the use of "liberty" rather than democracy since it fits your misguided view that America isn't a Democracy but rather a republic...

We are a Constitutional Liberal Democracy with a Republican form of Government.

... in which a minority can choose the rights of people...

Fake News. Our Rights are inherent. No one "chooses" them for us. Neither a majority, nor a minority can strip them from us.

Trumpism Must Be Purged Say Obama Counsels.

Two former Obama counsels, co-founders of the group “Protect Democracy,” have ideas on how to “save” America, and that’s to purge the nation of “Trumpism.” Because President Trump was our “most acute threat” since the Civil War, they hysterically wrote in an LA Times op-ed.

Ian Bassin and Justin Florence, who founded Protect Democracy, are former counsels to Barack Obama, which should tell you all you need to know about the organization. They call the group “non-partisan,” but consider that their “conservative” advisors include people like Mona Charen, John Dean, and Evan McMuffin — all Trump haters. Needless to say, the bulk of this group are all left-of-center types.

But this group is terrified of how Trumpism has "polluted" the nation, perhaps beyond all hope! To prove their point they have created a “Democracy Threat Index.” They derived this index by partnering with “independent experts” at something called the “Authoritarian Warning Survey.” Experts, people!

The most egregious threat that Protect Democracy lists is “Rhetoric,” which shows that our “near-term survival” is “threatened.” These include “critical violations that seriously threaten near-term survival.”

In short: Donald Trump is a “strongman” who says mean things. Not only that, Trumpism is also spreading globally, infecting formerly democratic nations with “autocrats.” Just like Trump, one assumes:

“Over the past 15 years, democracy has been in retreat around the world, with autocrats supplanting democratic governments in countries such as Turkey, Hungary, Venezuela and Poland.”

Protect Democracy manufactured this sophism from a 2019 Pew Research poll, which showed that people across the globe, especially in Europe, don’t particularly like their leaders. What a shocker! They believe their leaders are elitist and don’t care about them. Nor does much change from election to election, either. However, many of these same people feel they still have freedom of expression and opportunity.

That’s not autocracy — that’s populism. But notice how Bassin and Florence didn’t include true autocrats like China’s Xi Jinping or Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei. Yes, Khamenei — the supreme leader of Iran to whom Obama secretly sent a plane with $400 million in cash in 2016. That, of course, is different.

Plus, say Bassin and Florence, Trumpism also involves “delegitimizing vulnerable populations:”

“Trump tried to do this by falsely claiming he would have won the popular vote in 2016 but for millions of “illegal votes” from communities of color, and continued this with abusive immigration policies that separated families at the U.S.-Mexico border.”

So because Trump doesn’t want illegals to vote in our elections he’s a threat to democracy? Plus — just who built those migrant “cages” that Michelle Obama and others whined about? That would be President Obama.



They also claim that Trump’s executive orders are a threat to democracy:

“Trump repeatedly did this in such forms as declaring a fake emergency to appropriate funds that Congress refused to authorize for a border wall as well as asserting “the right to do whatever I want” and that his “authority is total.”

Remember this guy? Trumpism has nothing on Obama’s pen and phone.


Finally, Bassin and Florence insist that Trumpism means “quashing dissent:”

“Trump tried to do so by using regulatory powers to retaliate against critics in the media, stoking violence to silence opponents, even attempting to ban books.”

Seriously? Who spied on Fox News journalist James Rosen and possibly then-CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson? Bingo! Obama, once again. But Trump is the real threat to the media. Apparently they can’t abide him shouting at them in pressers or insulting them on Twitter. Poor babies.

So what is the cure for Trumpism, according to Bassin and Florence? We need to “purge” Trump abuses,” but “not as retribution, but to deter recurrence.”

“That means establishing independent investigations to account for abuses that took place, prosecuting violations of law, and restoring ethical and professional norms through government and private-sector actions.”

What violations of law? Who determines that? Who also determines what are “ethical” norms? A committee of Democrats? A panel of “experts” from left wing think tanks?

Sounds like something that goes on in Communist China, doesn’t it?

Plus, Bassin and Florence think Illegitimate Joe Biden should be involved, too:

“At the national level, President-elect Joe Biden should convene a diverse set of experts and citizens to make recommendations on how to address the representational deficiencies that are built into the Senate and the electoral college, including the way they have translated into an overly politicized federal judiciary.”

There it is: those “experts” again to “make recommendations.” As for those “representational deficiencies” in the Senate — who abolished the filibuster? Of course, Sen. Harry Reid and his band of Democrats. He paved the way for Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Don’t blame Trumpism.

Finally, Bassin and Florence conclude:

“Voting Trump out of office was the treatment our critically ill government needed, but it’s this set of next steps that will be the vaccine.”

This stuff should never, ever be happening in this country. But it echoes Robert B. Reich’s notion of a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to cure Trump-supporting Americans of their Trumpism as well as their conservatism. It also proves once again that the late Charles Krauthammer was correct in his assessment: Liberals think conservatives are evil.

It’s frightening that any American, no matter their political leanings, would seriously entertain such a purge.

Let me help you get to the conclusion of the matter before your similarly minded fascistic friends. Pursuing this will get your asses kicked further and make you a bigger laughing stock than you already are.

 

[Zorro!]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

It's the battle between the Snobs and Slobs. The entitled Middle Class fears the Working Middle Class and they routinely employ an array of tribalist cues that promote their "superiority" while assuring themselves what they view as the "upper middleclass" rightly views the "lower" middleclass as slobs.

Trump committed the sin of rejecting the snobs and embracing the "slobs". They will never forgive him for this.

Wow, way to establish the fact that YOU consider yourself a lower educated second class person...

Wow way to go F yourself. I do not used these "upper" and "lower" classifications of any human beings.

... Do you consider white rural young adults who chose to go to college and live in large cities with a diploma, diversity and density a traitor to the lower educated rural folks?

Your comments are so incongruent with mine that I have serious concerns that your skull may not currently be in the most advantageous positioning vs your lower intestine.

Correct that, re-read my post, then try again.

I get that you're butthurt.

But your classifications of "slobs" verses "snobs" using elitism I quite understand. You're a deplorable either own it or stop playing the victim over it.

I'm not butthurt at all. Your self-righteous take was so off-point that that there was no way for us to use it as a meaningful starting point. If you don't wish to understand the issue, what do I care? You have the right to your ignorance if that's your choice.

Your proving my point that you consider your political position to be that of the underclass railing against "elites". Elites being urban, educated and different than you.

Fake News. Indoctrination does not improve life skills, in fact, it deteriorates them. Their insecurity stems

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

It's the battle between the Snobs and Slobs. The entitled Middle Class fears the Working Middle Class and they routinely employ an array of tribalist cues that promote their "superiority" while assuring themselves what they view as the "upper middleclass" rightly views the "lower" middleclass as slobs.

Trump committed the sin of rejecting the snobs and embracing the "slobs". They will never forgive him for this.

Wow, way to establish the fact that YOU consider yourself a lower educated second class person...

Wow way to go F yourself. I do not used these "upper" and "lower" classifications of any human beings.

... Do you consider white rural young adults who chose to go to college and live in large cities with a diploma, diversity and density a traitor to the lower educated rural folks?

Your comments are so incongruent with mine that I have serious concerns that your skull may not currently be in the most advantageous positioning vs your lower intestine.

Correct that, re-read my post, then try again.

I get that you're butthurt.

But your classifications of "slobs" verses "snobs" using elitism I quite understand. You're a deplorable either own it or stop playing the victim over it.

I'm not butthurt at all. Your self-righteous take was so off-point that that there was no way for us to use it as a meaningful starting point. If you don't wish to understand the issue, what do I care? You have the right to your ignorance if that's your choice.

Your proving my point that you consider your political position to be that of the underclass railing against "elites". Elites being urban, educated and different than you.

You pretty much suck at at mind reading, and no, I have no use for snobs. I find them to be rather divisive and, at best, merely useless.

In your words, what is a "snob"?

I'm pretty sure you don't go to bubba at the other end of the tavern to check on your anal cist.

Your vulgarity aside, training in observations of anal cysts (learn to spell) does not make one inherently more deserving of the full complement of human rights than any other.

Take for example the Left's embrace of Big Tech Censorship in their relentless attack on our First Amendment.

The Big Tech internal speech codes are just like Europe’s broad, discretionary standards in that they permit a privileged few to determine what is and is not offensive or “dangerous” speech. For example, Facebook bans “hate speech,” including “white nationalist rhetoric” and “violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation,” as well as other categories of offensive speech. Although this type of speech policing is contrary to the American principle that we have the liberty to offend, these definitions might sound otherwise uncontroversial and even attractive (after all, most decent people don’t want to be exposed to violent or dehumanizing speech). But, in addition to offending our spirit of free speech generally, the application of these standards has already proven to be both broad and biased, permitting companies to label all manner of political socially-conservative speech as dangerous or violent. There is wisdom and authentic freedom in America’s adherence to robust and “absolutist” protection of speech; there is opportunity for corruption, bias, and suffocating censorship lurking in the European approach.

Big Tech has effectively imported European speech law into the United States. Big Tech has created a massive internal framework that blankets the nation and imposes European-style standards in direct opposition to the robust, absolutist American rule.

Because Tech oligarchs control the primary thoroughfares of public discourse today—our new public squares of the digital age—they have effectively occupied our country and imposed foreign law on American citizens, restricting our fundamental liberty to gather and to exchange thoughts and ideas freely.

Justice Scalia once remarked, “many Europeans like to think of Americans as their close cousins—albeit reckless, loudmouthed cousins they’re embarrassed to talk about at dinner parties. It is easy to forget, however, that the United States was settled primarily by people seeking, in one way or another, refuge from the ways of Europe.” Our freedoms are not equal.

Europe’s speech standards leave Europeans at the mercy of their ruling class. In America, the First Amendment (and the attitude it embodies), continues to provide Americans the strongest speech rights of any people on earth. Big Tech and the Left cannot be allowed to impose European speech codes in digital public squares within American jurisdictions.

You'll keep losing. We Americans understand that the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.

... I think that you don't understand right to offend with the right to incite a guy to shoot up a pizza joint...

Fake News. Here is your argument:

i) Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...
ii) Felony incitement is illegal.
Therefore
iii) Congress is free to pass laws abridging the freedom of speech if the Left finds the content objectionable.

Now, i) and ii) are accurate, it's iii) where the wheels fell off your fascistic cart. You guys are stuck on the stupid that you think you can criminalize policy disagreements. If you were able to do that you would be violating the inherent rights of others when your goal should always be respecting the rights of others.

Brandenburg v. Ohio is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment that held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964. Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "N*ggers," "Jews," and those who supported them and also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race," and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July. Another speech advocated for the forced expulsion of African Americans to Africa and Jewish Americans to Israel.

Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made. In relevant part, the statute – enacted in 1919 during the First Red Scare – proscribed "advocating...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and "voluntarily assembling with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

Convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Brandenburg was fined $1,000 and sentenced to one to ten years in prison. On appeal, the Ohio First District Court of Appeal affirmed Brandenburg's conviction, rejecting his claim that the statute violated his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed his appeal without opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. The majority opinion was per curiam, issued from the Court as an institution, rather than as authored and signed by an individual justice.

The per curiam majority opinion articulated the "imminent lawless action" test – for judging what was then referred to as "seditious speech" under the First Amendment:

…the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

The Brandenburg test (also known as the Two-pronged Test.)
The three distinct elements of this test (intent to speak, imminence of lawlessness, and likelihood of lawlessness) have distinct precedential lineages.

Justice William O. Douglas's opinion dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" in order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action". In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech. Fascists love to pretend this is an opening move rather than the quick and final stop.

The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts by fascists to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in a half century ago, you really have no excuse for being ignorant of it. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test even the outer limits of Brandenburg.

So no, you can't police our speech and criminalize differences of opinion, and shame on you for wanting to.

 

[otto105]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

It's the battle between the Snobs and Slobs. The entitled Middle Class fears the Working Middle Class and they routinely employ an array of tribalist cues that promote their "superiority" while assuring themselves what they view as the "upper middleclass" rightly views the "lower" middleclass as slobs.

Trump committed the sin of rejecting the snobs and embracing the "slobs". They will never forgive him for this.

Wow, way to establish the fact that YOU consider yourself a lower educated second class person...

Wow way to go F yourself. I do not used these "upper" and "lower" classifications of any human beings.

... Do you consider white rural young adults who chose to go to college and live in large cities with a diploma, diversity and density a traitor to the lower educated rural folks?

Your comments are so incongruent with mine that I have serious concerns that your skull may not currently be in the most advantageous positioning vs your lower intestine.

Correct that, re-read my post, then try again.

I get that you're butthurt.

But your classifications of "slobs" verses "snobs" using elitism I quite understand. You're a deplorable either own it or stop playing the victim over it.

I'm not butthurt at all. Your self-righteous take was so off-point that that there was no way for us to use it as a meaningful starting point. If you don't wish to understand the issue, what do I care? You have the right to your ignorance if that's your choice.

Your proving my point that you consider your political position to be that of the underclass railing against "elites". Elites being urban, educated and different than you.

Fake News. Indoctrination does not improve life skills, in fact, it deteriorates them. Their insecurity stems

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

It's the battle between the Snobs and Slobs. The entitled Middle Class fears the Working Middle Class and they routinely employ an array of tribalist cues that promote their "superiority" while assuring themselves what they view as the "upper middleclass" rightly views the "lower" middleclass as slobs.

Trump committed the sin of rejecting the snobs and embracing the "slobs". They will never forgive him for this.

Wow, way to establish the fact that YOU consider yourself a lower educated second class person...

Wow way to go F yourself. I do not used these "upper" and "lower" classifications of any human beings.

... Do you consider white rural young adults who chose to go to college and live in large cities with a diploma, diversity and density a traitor to the lower educated rural folks?

Your comments are so incongruent with mine that I have serious concerns that your skull may not currently be in the most advantageous positioning vs your lower intestine.

Correct that, re-read my post, then try again.

I get that you're butthurt.

But your classifications of "slobs" verses "snobs" using elitism I quite understand. You're a deplorable either own it or stop playing the victim over it.

I'm not butthurt at all. Your self-righteous take was so off-point that that there was no way for us to use it as a meaningful starting point. If you don't wish to understand the issue, what do I care? You have the right to your ignorance if that's your choice.

Your proving my point that you consider your political position to be that of the underclass railing against "elites". Elites being urban, educated and different than you.

You pretty much suck at at mind reading, and no, I have no use for snobs. I find them to be rather divisive and, at best, merely useless.

In your words, what is a "snob"?

I'm pretty sure you don't go to bubba at the other end of the tavern to check on your anal cist.

Your vulgarity aside, training in observations of anal cysts (learn to spell) does not make one inherently more deserving of the full complement of human rights than any other.

Take for example the Left's embrace of Big Tech Censorship in their relentless attack on our First Amendment.

The Big Tech internal speech codes are just like Europe’s broad, discretionary standards in that they permit a privileged few to determine what is and is not offensive or “dangerous” speech. For example, Facebook bans “hate speech,” including “white nationalist rhetoric” and “violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation,” as well as other categories of offensive speech. Although this type of speech policing is contrary to the American principle that we have the liberty to offend, these definitions might sound otherwise uncontroversial and even attractive (after all, most decent people don’t want to be exposed to violent or dehumanizing speech). But, in addition to offending our spirit of free speech generally, the application of these standards has already proven to be both broad and biased, permitting companies to label all manner of political socially-conservative speech as dangerous or violent. There is wisdom and authentic freedom in America’s adherence to robust and “absolutist” protection of speech; there is opportunity for corruption, bias, and suffocating censorship lurking in the European approach.

Big Tech has effectively imported European speech law into the United States. Big Tech has created a massive internal framework that blankets the nation and imposes European-style standards in direct opposition to the robust, absolutist American rule.

Because Tech oligarchs control the primary thoroughfares of public discourse today—our new public squares of the digital age—they have effectively occupied our country and imposed foreign law on American citizens, restricting our fundamental liberty to gather and to exchange thoughts and ideas freely.

Justice Scalia once remarked, “many Europeans like to think of Americans as their close cousins—albeit reckless, loudmouthed cousins they’re embarrassed to talk about at dinner parties. It is easy to forget, however, that the United States was settled primarily by people seeking, in one way or another, refuge from the ways of Europe.” Our freedoms are not equal.

Europe’s speech standards leave Europeans at the mercy of their ruling class. In America, the First Amendment (and the attitude it embodies), continues to provide Americans the strongest speech rights of any people on earth. Big Tech and the Left cannot be allowed to impose European speech codes in digital public squares within American jurisdictions.

You'll keep losing. We Americans understand that the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.

... I think that you don't understand right to offend with the right to incite a guy to shoot up a pizza joint...

Fake News. Here is your argument:

i) Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...
ii) Felony incitement is illegal.
Therefore
iii) Congress is free to pass laws abridging the freedom of speech if the Left finds the content objectionable.

Now, i) and ii) are accurate, it's iii) where the wheels fell off your fascistic cart. You guys are stuck on the stupid that you think you can criminalize policy disagreements. If you were able to do that you would be violating the inherent rights of others when your goal should always be respecting the rights of others.

Brandenburg v. Ohio is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment that held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964. Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "N*ggers," "Jews," and those who supported them and also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race," and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July. Another speech advocated for the forced expulsion of African Americans to Africa and Jewish Americans to Israel.

Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made. In relevant part, the statute – enacted in 1919 during the First Red Scare – proscribed "advocating...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and "voluntarily assembling with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

Convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Brandenburg was fined $1,000 and sentenced to one to ten years in prison. On appeal, the Ohio First District Court of Appeal affirmed Brandenburg's conviction, rejecting his claim that the statute violated his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed his appeal without opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. The majority opinion was per curiam, issued from the Court as an institution, rather than as authored and signed by an individual justice.

The per curiam majority opinion articulated the "imminent lawless action" test – for judging what was then referred to as "seditious speech" under the First Amendment:

…the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

The Brandenburg test (also known as the Two-pronged Test.)
The three distinct elements of this test (intent to speak, imminence of lawlessness, and likelihood of lawlessness) have distinct precedential lineages.

The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous.


Justice William O. Douglas's opinion dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" in order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action". In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech. Fascists love to pretend this is an opening move rather than the quick and final stop.

The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts by fascists to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in a half century ago, you really have no excuse for being ignorant of it. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test even the outer limits of Brandenburg. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test four years later in Hess v. Indiana.

So no, you can't police our speech and criminalize differences of opinion, and shame on you for wanting to.

Is Big Tech the government?
Since when?

If a religious cake maker can discriminate against people why can’t BT censor wightnut lies?

 

[otto105]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

They don't actually hate Trump, they hate us. That's not changing. If anyone fell for the ploy that if we fed them Trump that they would let up on us, let me disabuse you of that right now. They live to express their hate, and they aren't real bright, just very determined and relentless.

DEMOCRATS SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT: By putting Proposition 16 on the ballot, California’s deep-blue legislators help elected Republicans Michelle Park Steel and Young Kim to Congress. Washington State’s Democrats may want to take note.

Narrator's voice: WA State Democrats will not take note.

Golden State voters — and especially immigrants — overwhelmingly rejected racial preferences.

They voted for Trumpism, even as they rejected Trump.

Progressive groups were shocked on Election Day by the fate of Proposition 16 in California.

Prop 16 would have amended the California Constitution and repealed the prohibition against preferential treatment based on race. That prohibition was put into the state constitution by 55 percent of the state’s voters in 1996. But the proposed repeal of the prohibition against racial preferences was rejected this month by a larger margin of 57 percent to 43 percent.

The Left imagines a world where the "unwashed" are ever moving toward their racialist views, in reality, over the last 25 years, the net movement is just as against their racializing silos as it was a quarter century ago, even more so.

"Trumpism" isn't about Trump, it's about equal treatment.

What makes this remarkable is that California has drifted far to the left since 1996 — Bill Clinton carried it for president by only 13 points that year. Joe Biden won the state by just under 30 points this year.

A new post-election survey called the California Community Poll and run by the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley provides some answers. It was conducted on behalf of some groups favoring Proposition 16 who couldn’t understand why they lost. It makes for fascinating reading.

"Everyone" was for Prop 16. Virtually the entire political and media establishment endorsed it. The state’s Democrat attorney general produced a ballot summary biased in favor of the measure. Major corporate and labor-union donations allowed proponents to spend $23 million. Opponents spent only $1.8 million and had zero money for television ads.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the results of this David vs. Goliath struggle as follows: “The findings of the survey provide the clearest evidence so far of the disconnect between those political leaders and many of their ostensible followers.” While there is widespread support for diversity and outreach to minority groups among the general public, the California Community at the same time found “broad skepticism about allowing government officials to use race, ethnicity or gender in making decisions.”

That skepticism extended across racial groups. Among Latinos, only 30 percent said Proposition 16 was a good idea, compared with 41 percent who called it a bad idea. Among Asian respondents, 35 percent called the proposition a good idea while 46 percent saying it was a bad idea. Whites were only slightly more opposed, with 32 percent thinking Prop 16 was a good idea and 53 percent a bad idea.

Proposition 16 was backed by a majority of African Americans. But only 56 percent of them called it a good idea, 19 percent said it was a bad idea, and a surprisingly high 25 percent weren’t sure.

The survey included the fascinating finding that immigrants were more opposed to racial quotas than native-born Americans were. “Many immigrants came to this country for equal opportunities” and are suspicious about preferences for specific groups, Charlie Woo, the board chairman of an Asian economic empowerment group, told the Los Angeles Times.

The White affluent Left presumes that they can build a coalition with resentful minorities, only to find that minorities want the same thing the rest of us do, equality before the law.

“The stunning defeat of Prop 16 sent a powerful national message that voters viewed the use of race as divisive, even toxic,”

"Progressives" in Washington State are already planning to put a measure on the ballot in 2022 to repeal that state’s ban on racial preferences. They already lost a similar attempt in 2019, when voters statewide rejected the idea despite massive infusions of campaign money from left-wing groups.

These folks are incapable of learning.

In CA Democrats lost two congressional seats in Orange County because Prop 16 was on the ballot. Republicans Michelle Steel and Young Kim, two Korean Americans, ousted liberal incumbents, with each getting 51 percent of the vote. Proposition 16 brought Asian voters who opposed it to the polls, and they then supported her and other candidates who also opposed it.

Leftists’ attempt to repeal bans on racial preferences in Washington State bring to mind the situation after workers revolted in East Germany in 1953, what their pigheaded Communist leaders really wanted was “to dissolve the people and elect another.”

There was a time when liberals learned from their political overreach. For example, after gun control cost them the House in 1994, they didn't try to reimpose it after they finally recaptured the House in 2006.

Even a flatworm will turn from pain, it's not currently clear that the racialist Left is as smart as a flatworm.

trumpism is NOT about "equal treatment" its about grievance politics

Fake News. Trumpism isn't even about Trump. Everything is about equal treatment. The Left is against it as clearly evidenced by their all out war on the First Amendment.

BIG TECH OCCUPIES THE UNITED STATES: “Big Tech has infiltrated the American homeland and is imposing speech laws that resemble those of Europe, challenging the authority and longevity of the First Amendment.”

We are the longest surviving liberal democracy, a feat enabled by our unique approach to human rights. Big Tech’s speech codes cannot be allowed to inflict American citizens in American jurisdictions. If the would-be "progressive" monarchs of Silicon Valley get their way, their speech codes will undermine our American values of free speech and the First Amendment.

A Tale of Two Speeches

In America, the First Amendment expresses an absolutist viewpoint on speech:

“Congress shall make no law...”​

From there, the courts have developed a framework that governs speech. Not all speech is “protected” speech and we have standards that determine if, when, where, and how the government can limit speech. American speech law begins at that intransigent right:

“Congress shall make no law.”​

This principle permeates the American mindset and is defended by our written and entrenched Constitution.

Europe begins from a qualified position and immediately seeks to balance speech with other competing interests. European law begins with the assumption that speech is a privilege, the contours of which can be defined and redefined by the government. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights makes this clear.

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers….​

This sounds good until you read the second paragraph:

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (emphasis added)​

The blunt fact is that Europeans have freedom of speech at the discretion of their governments. Government decides what speech restrictions are “necessary in a democratic society”! The European crusade against hate speech (a label applied to any disfavored speech) is a perfect example of the abuse that flourishes when free speech is nothing more than a discretionary standard subject to majority votes of prevailing legislatures.

In the United Kingdom when ‘insulting’ was included in the hate speech law “arrests and prosecutions ranged from an Oxford student asking a police officer ‘Do you realise your horse is gay?’ which Thames Valley police described as homophobic and ‘offensive to people passing by’, to a 16-year-old holding up a placard that said ‘Scientology is a dangerous cult’.” Hate speech can mean almost anything, and in 2018, British police were rounding up and questioning people for tweets that criticized gender reassignment surgeries for children. As the culture slips, standards that can be amended by majority legislatures do not defend speech rights.

The United States Constitution’s protection of speech has no tempering clause. Our court-created frameworks all seek to implement and obey the opening, sweeping directive of the First Amendment; we do not recognize a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment; and our speech rights are certainly not at the mercy of every successive Congress’s whim. We can truly boast speech rights—and the ability to assert those rights against our government.

So, once again you miss what you are immersed in because you are willfully blinded by your own false sense of moral superiority.

Of course we have a "tempering" affect to speech. Can one yell fire in a crowded movie house? Can one use speech to incite violence?

You conservatives are just pissed that big tech won't be complicit in your falsehood spread. Better yet, go on the free republic and post that Biden won the election and see how fast your speech is banned.

The antidote to false speech isn't censorship, it's more free speech. You're confused about why you keep losing, I'm simply explaining Americans to you. Once you understand Americans, you'll also understand that we will be respected, and once you understand that your frustration will give way to a much healthier wave of admiration. Until then, the ass kickings will continue, we secure our Liberty not just for ourselves, but for our Posterity.

I don't know what the fuck you want to set up as a strawman argument, or what ass kicking you think is happening...

You guys were badly whipped the the last election. All the effort to steal the election and you lost everything else, from several House seats to the critical State legislative seats that you needed in order to draw the election maps that will be used for the next ten years. All you got was Lame Duck illegitimate Biden who will accomplish next to nothing between now and when the 2022 election when Dems lose control of the House. And then because everyone moving out of Blue States in favor of Red States, do you ever wonder what that is all about? You'll lose 7 ECV in the 2024 election.

... it's you as an idiot conservative that doesn't understand...

You don't even know how to spell cyst. It's always sad when snobs put airs and then misspell simple one syllable words.

... The spreading of disinformation is cancerous to a thriving Democracy...

The solution to disinformation is even more freedom, not censorship. You see, you clowns claim everything you disagree with is disinformation, which is why the Obama government argued, in court, that they had the right to ban books. Things like that, if you were in your right mind, would shock you out of your fascistic ways, but, you are part of a cult and you have sealed yourself off from sensible feedback that would shock you back into your senses.

... BTW I noticed the use of "liberty" rather than democracy since it fits your misguided view that America isn't a Democracy but rather a republic...

We are a Constitutional Liberal Democracy with a Republican form of Government.

... in which a minority can choose the rights of people...

Fake News. Our Rights are inherent. No one "chooses" them for us. Neither a majority, nor a minority can strip them from us.

Trumpism Must Be Purged Say Obama Counsels.

Two former Obama counsels, co-founders of the group “Protect Democracy,” have ideas on how to “save” America, and that’s to purge the nation of “Trumpism.” Because President Trump was our “most acute threat” since the Civil War, they hysterically wrote in an LA Times op-ed.

Ian Bassin and Justin Florence, who founded Protect Democracy, are former counsels to Barack Obama, which should tell you all you need to know about the organization. They call the group “non-partisan,” but consider that their “conservative” advisors include people like Mona Charen, John Dean, and Evan McMuffin — all Trump haters. Needless to say, the bulk of this group are all left-of-center types.

But this group is terrified of how Trumpism has "polluted" the nation, perhaps beyond all hope! To prove their point they have created a “Democracy Threat Index.” They derived this index by partnering with “independent experts” at something called the “Authoritarian Warning Survey.” Experts, people!

The most egregious threat that Protect Democracy lists is “Rhetoric,” which shows that our “near-term survival” is “threatened.” These include “critical violations that seriously threaten near-term survival.”

In short: Donald Trump is a “strongman” who says mean things. Not only that, Trumpism is also spreading globally, infecting formerly democratic nations with “autocrats.” Just like Trump, one assumes:

“Over the past 15 years, democracy has been in retreat around the world, with autocrats supplanting democratic governments in countries such as Turkey, Hungary, Venezuela and Poland.”

Protect Democracy manufactured this sophism from a 2019 Pew Research poll, which showed that people across the globe, especially in Europe, don’t particularly like their leaders. What a shocker! They believe their leaders are elitist and don’t care about them. Nor does much change from election to election, either. However, many of these same people feel they still have freedom of expression and opportunity.

That’s not autocracy — that’s populism. But notice how Bassin and Florence didn’t include true autocrats like China’s Xi Jinping or Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei. Yes, Khamenei — the supreme leader of Iran to whom Obama secretly sent a plane with $400 million in cash in 2016. That, of course, is different.

Plus, say Bassin and Florence, Trumpism also involves “delegitimizing vulnerable populations:”

“Trump tried to do this by falsely claiming he would have won the popular vote in 2016 but for millions of “illegal votes” from communities of color, and continued this with abusive immigration policies that separated families at the U.S.-Mexico border.”

So because Trump doesn’t want illegals to vote in our elections he’s a threat to democracy? Plus — just who built those migrant “cages” that Michelle Obama and others whined about? That would be President Obama.



They also claim that Trump’s executive orders are a threat to democracy:

“Trump repeatedly did this in such forms as declaring a fake emergency to appropriate funds that Congress refused to authorize for a border wall as well as asserting “the right to do whatever I want” and that his “authority is total.”

Remember this guy? Trumpism has nothing on Obama’s pen and phone.


Finally, Bassin and Florence insist that Trumpism means “quashing dissent:”

“Trump tried to do so by using regulatory powers to retaliate against critics in the media, stoking violence to silence opponents, even attempting to ban books.”

Seriously? Who spied on Fox News journalist James Rosen and possibly then-CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson? Bingo! Obama, once again. But Trump is the real threat to the media. Apparently they can’t abide him shouting at them in pressers or insulting them on Twitter. Poor babies.

So what is the cure for Trumpism, according to Bassin and Florence? We need to “purge” Trump abuses,” but “not as retribution, but to deter recurrence.”

“That means establishing independent investigations to account for abuses that took place, prosecuting violations of law, and restoring ethical and professional norms through government and private-sector actions.”

What violations of law? Who determines that? Who also determines what are “ethical” norms? A committee of Democrats? A panel of “experts” from left wing think tanks?

Sounds like something that goes on in Communist China, doesn’t it?

Plus, Bassin and Florence think Illegitimate Joe Biden should be involved, too:

“At the national level, President-elect Joe Biden should convene a diverse set of experts and citizens to make recommendations on how to address the representational deficiencies that are built into the Senate and the electoral college, including the way they have translated into an overly politicized federal judiciary.”

There it is: those “experts” again to “make recommendations.” As for those “representational deficiencies” in the Senate — who abolished the filibuster? Of course, Sen. Harry Reid and his band of Democrats. He paved the way for Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Don’t blame Trumpism.

Finally, Bassin and Florence conclude:

“Voting Trump out of office was the treatment our critically ill government needed, but it’s this set of next steps that will be the vaccine.”

This stuff should never, ever be happening in this country. But it echoes Robert B. Reich’s notion of a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to cure Trump-supporting Americans of their Trumpism as well as their conservatism. It also proves once again that the late Charles Krauthammer was correct in his assessment: Liberals think conservatives are evil.

It’s frightening that any American, no matter their political leanings, would seriously entertain such a purge.

Let me help you get to the conclusion of the matter before your similarly minded fascistic friends. Pursuing this will get your asses kicked further and make you a bigger laughing stock than you already are.

We think that you’re idiots who are out of ideas.

 

[Zorro!]

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

It's the battle between the Snobs and Slobs. The entitled Middle Class fears the Working Middle Class and they routinely employ an array of tribalist cues that promote their "superiority" while assuring themselves what they view as the "upper middleclass" rightly views the "lower" middleclass as slobs.

Trump committed the sin of rejecting the snobs and embracing the "slobs". They will never forgive him for this.

Wow, way to establish the fact that YOU consider yourself a lower educated second class person...

Wow way to go F yourself. I do not used these "upper" and "lower" classifications of any human beings.

... Do you consider white rural young adults who chose to go to college and live in large cities with a diploma, diversity and density a traitor to the lower educated rural folks?

Your comments are so incongruent with mine that I have serious concerns that your skull may not currently be in the most advantageous positioning vs your lower intestine.

Correct that, re-read my post, then try again.

I get that you're butthurt.

But your classifications of "slobs" verses "snobs" using elitism I quite understand. You're a deplorable either own it or stop playing the victim over it.

I'm not butthurt at all. Your self-righteous take was so off-point that that there was no way for us to use it as a meaningful starting point. If you don't wish to understand the issue, what do I care? You have the right to your ignorance if that's your choice.

Your proving my point that you consider your political position to be that of the underclass railing against "elites". Elites being urban, educated and different than you.

Fake News. Indoctrination does not improve life skills, in fact, it deteriorates them. Their insecurity stems

All I've seen is positive things he has done since he entered the WH.
Don't say he's a racist either because that's bullshit. List what he has done that is SO BAD you hate him enough to put a senile old man in his place.

It's the battle between the Snobs and Slobs. The entitled Middle Class fears the Working Middle Class and they routinely employ an array of tribalist cues that promote their "superiority" while assuring themselves what they view as the "upper middleclass" rightly views the "lower" middleclass as slobs.

Trump committed the sin of rejecting the snobs and embracing the "slobs". They will never forgive him for this.

Wow, way to establish the fact that YOU consider yourself a lower educated second class person...

Wow way to go F yourself. I do not used these "upper" and "lower" classifications of any human beings.

... Do you consider white rural young adults who chose to go to college and live in large cities with a diploma, diversity and density a traitor to the lower educated rural folks?

Your comments are so incongruent with mine that I have serious concerns that your skull may not currently be in the most advantageous positioning vs your lower intestine.

Correct that, re-read my post, then try again.

I get that you're butthurt.

But your classifications of "slobs" verses "snobs" using elitism I quite understand. You're a deplorable either own it or stop playing the victim over it.

I'm not butthurt at all. Your self-righteous take was so off-point that that there was no way for us to use it as a meaningful starting point. If you don't wish to understand the issue, what do I care? You have the right to your ignorance if that's your choice.

Your proving my point that you consider your political position to be that of the underclass railing against "elites". Elites being urban, educated and different than you.

You pretty much suck at at mind reading, and no, I have no use for snobs. I find them to be rather divisive and, at best, merely useless.

In your words, what is a "snob"?

I'm pretty sure you don't go to bubba at the other end of the tavern to check on your anal cist.

Your vulgarity aside, training in observations of anal cysts (learn to spell) does not make one inherently more deserving of the full complement of human rights than any other.

Take for example the Left's embrace of Big Tech Censorship in their relentless attack on our First Amendment.

The Big Tech internal speech codes are just like Europe’s broad, discretionary standards in that they permit a privileged few to determine what is and is not offensive or “dangerous” speech. For example, Facebook bans “hate speech,” including “white nationalist rhetoric” and “violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation,” as well as other categories of offensive speech. Although this type of speech policing is contrary to the American principle that we have the liberty to offend, these definitions might sound otherwise uncontroversial and even attractive (after all, most decent people don’t want to be exposed to violent or dehumanizing speech). But, in addition to offending our spirit of free speech generally, the application of these standards has already proven to be both broad and biased, permitting companies to label all manner of political socially-conservative speech as dangerous or violent. There is wisdom and authentic freedom in America’s adherence to robust and “absolutist” protection of speech; there is opportunity for corruption, bias, and suffocating censorship lurking in the European approach.

Big Tech has effectively imported European speech law into the United States. Big Tech has created a massive internal framework that blankets the nation and imposes European-style standards in direct opposition to the robust, absolutist American rule.

Because Tech oligarchs control the primary thoroughfares of public discourse today—our new public squares of the digital age—they have effectively occupied our country and imposed foreign law on American citizens, restricting our fundamental liberty to gather and to exchange thoughts and ideas freely.

Justice Scalia once remarked, “many Europeans like to think of Americans as their close cousins—albeit reckless, loudmouthed cousins they’re embarrassed to talk about at dinner parties. It is easy to forget, however, that the United States was settled primarily by people seeking, in one way or another, refuge from the ways of Europe.” Our freedoms are not equal.

Europe’s speech standards leave Europeans at the mercy of their ruling class. In America, the First Amendment (and the attitude it embodies), continues to provide Americans the strongest speech rights of any people on earth. Big Tech and the Left cannot be allowed to impose European speech codes in digital public squares within American jurisdictions.

You'll keep losing. We Americans understand that the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.

... I think that you don't understand right to offend with the right to incite a guy to shoot up a pizza joint...

Fake News. Here is your argument:

i) Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...
ii) Felony incitement is illegal.
Therefore
iii) Congress is free to pass laws abridging the freedom of speech if the Left finds the content objectionable.

Now, i) and ii) are accurate, it's iii) where the wheels fell off your fascistic cart. You guys are stuck on the stupid that you think you can criminalize policy disagreements. If you were able to do that you would be violating the inherent rights of others when your goal should always be respecting the rights of others.

Brandenburg v. Ohio is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment that held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964. Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "N*ggers," "Jews," and those who supported them and also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race," and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July. Another speech advocated for the forced expulsion of African Americans to Africa and Jewish Americans to Israel.

Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made. In relevant part, the statute – enacted in 1919 during the First Red Scare – proscribed "advocating...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and "voluntarily assembling with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

Convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Brandenburg was fined $1,000 and sentenced to one to ten years in prison. On appeal, the Ohio First District Court of Appeal affirmed Brandenburg's conviction, rejecting his claim that the statute violated his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed his appeal without opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. The majority opinion was per curiam, issued from the Court as an institution, rather than as authored and signed by an individual justice.

The per curiam majority opinion articulated the "imminent lawless action" test – for judging what was then referred to as "seditious speech" under the First Amendment:

…the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

The Brandenburg test (also known as the Two-pronged Test.)
The three distinct elements of this test (intent to speak, imminence of lawlessness, and likelihood of lawlessness) have distinct precedential lineages.

The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous.


Justice William O. Douglas's opinion dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" in order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action". In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech. Fascists love to pretend this is an opening move rather than the quick and final stop.

The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts by fascists to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in a half century ago, you really have no excuse for being ignorant of it. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test even the outer limits of Brandenburg. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test four years later in Hess v. Indiana.

So no, you can't police our speech and criminalize differences of opinion, and shame on you for wanting to.

Is Big Tech the government?
Since when?

If a religious cake maker can discriminate against people why can’t BT censor wightnut lies?

It's truly pathetic how desperately you want to control the conduct of others rather than policing your own urges to violate the rights of others redeeming that urge into the desire to respect the rights of others to speak hold and publish views and opinions that differ from your own. What small mindedness and insecurity you suffer from, firmly convinced that your views cannot prevail in the arena of ideas.

First, I notice that the gutless bastards never try to compel Islamic bakers to make your gay cakes, rather you prey on Christians because you know that they won't cut your heads off, that you can violate their rights and they will restrain themselves to lawful responses that preserve your safety.

No one in America refuses to serve cakes to anyone, the only thing the fascistic bastards are restrained from doing is FORCING others to engage in art that violates their religious views, views that the fascistic bastards think should be forbidden. When you reach a deeper level of humanity and maturity you will respect the right of your fellow human beings to hold and act on views that they hold precious just as they respect your right to do the same.

When these big tech companies were in their infancy, they claimed that they would act as "common carriers" essentially nothing more than platforms, not unlike the trucks that delivered newspapers back in the day. Why it would be silly to hold truckers responsible for the headlines that were on the newspapers they were delivering, and Congress, being agreeable, fashioned immunity for them to shield them from the prosecution that would result if a publisher slandered or censored others while pretending to be a free and neutral observer and platform.

Clearly they are engaging in viewpoint discrimination, censorship and even trying to influence elections. It's long past time for their Congressional Immunity to be removed and for them to be subject to the same regulation as every other publisher.