US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
FogBlueInSanFran said:
So when a newspaper refuses to print your letter to the editor, for whatever reason, is that an attack on democracy and/or a violation of your rights?

Allowing for a corporation’s desires while regulating them is PART of a democracy.

Your take is bad.
Click to expand...
And my take is poor.

I get it, you don't like Trump, neither do I, allowing for corporate desires should be no part of democracy as their influence is certainly not benign.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
I also agree Pie is wrong on this one. The thing about hosting such people on Twitter rather than some fringe Stormfront website is that it legitimises the viewpoint and risks bringing more moderate people along for the ride. Perhaps that would happen anyway, but your ordinary conservative-thinking person isn't likely to end up on some dodgy far right website, whereas they are likely to end up on Twitter. The alt-right wasn't a huge problem when it was just some fringe group on 4Chan rather than harassing people on Twitter. Twitter allows such fringe people to get a foothold and build a following in the wider conservative community. It's up to people if they think that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I don't think that hosting all sorts of vile views openly makes them less likely to become a problem. If anything, it makes them more likely to become accepted parts of normal discourse. Ultimately, I think it's up to Twitter themselves what they want to host on their website (unless it violates the law), but I certainly won't be praising them for banning someone they've been profiting off for 5 years who has written things that would get any other user banned several times a week.
Click to expand...
Certainly no praise for Twitter from me. If it weren't for the fear or reprisals, they wouldn't have acted.
 
Rascal said:
And my take is poor.

I get it, you don't like Trump, neither do I, allowing for corporate desires should be no part of democracy as their influence is certainly not benign.
Click to expand...
Allowing for corporate desires IS and SHOULD BE part of democracy. So should VOTING for REPRESENTATIVES who WRITE LAWS to REGULATE corporate desires.

Currently some Republicans are calling for Twitter and Facebook to be nationalized. Do you agree with them?
 
mat said:
It's a powerful point.

You only need to look at what certain tech firms have been found guilty of with regards to politics. I made a joke on Twitter that the real power in the US has spoken and President Jack Dorsey with his Vice President Zuckerberg finally decided to act to protect their country. I got some pelters from a few of our US Cousins.
Click to expand...
Funny aint it how us lefties who are supposed to be the ones who are all for cancel culture are the ones with misgivings about the banning of Trump.

Do you think they are snowflakes mate?
 
squirtyflower said:
I’ve read a lot of posts in here eulogising over the Big Tech’s banning of certain topics.
That’s all well and good when you are against or dislike those topics but what will they feel when it’s their turn to be banned on the whim of some billionaire’s company?
Click to expand...
You say that like it hasn't been the status quo for over 100 years anyway. Almost every view that gets aired on a wide scale publicly has gone through the filter of some billionaire's media company. The difference, of course, is that what they publish (at least in the UK) is more heavily regulated than social media.

The question is whether social media should be obliged to host all views, should be regulated in the same sense as TV news (hard to do online when everyone can comment in real time) or should self-regulate and effectively decide what they want to host. There's the extra difficulty of having to exist worldwide. It's unlikely that any rules governing Twitter in the UK would be palatable in America, for example. Look at their TV news, for example.
 
Rascal said:
His actions were crass, the man is a narcissistic clown, I don't like him at all.

People are confusing the two.

If twitter had banned Biden, the very same people on here who getting hot under the collar about my post would then be outraged at the banning of Biden and saying Corporate power has gone to far.

Because the issue is about Corporate power and how far it has seeped into society and how much it affects our lives and our democracy.
Click to expand...
No it about biden being a normal person ! He is not being inflammatory
 
Rascal said:
Maybe so, I am still not comfortable with what i think is an over reach of corporate power. Banning a person who is democratically elected sets a dangerous precedent for future censorship of political views that don't appeal to certain corporate entities.

What if twitter decides to ban Biden next, the lack of response to the banning of Trump makes it more likely and before long they can start banning all politicians and we move into the realms of Corporate power crushing Democracy and states becoming Oligarchies.
Click to expand...
Trump wasn't banned from Twitter for an opposing political viewpoint though, he was banned for his consistent lies and incitement of violence.
Also, do you honestly believe that it's Twitter that is the one who has been crushing democracy for the last four years?
 
Rascal said:
Funny aint it how us lefties who are supposed to be the ones who are all for cancel culture are the ones with misgivings about the banning of Trump.

Do you think they are snowflakes mate?
Click to expand...
The way the most extreme one react you have to consider that argument.
 
I think the majority of us are in agreement the Fascist has been found out.

The effects of the corporate world on our lives both on a personal and political level is really worth a thread of its own which will probably tank after 4 pages sadly despite it being an important topic.
 
bluethrunthru said:
He has a room at the White House with a podium and studio facilities from where he could address the world. That would spread across all platforms by his lovers and his haters alike. He is simply personally banned off one social platform.
Click to expand...
But that means not using other people’s words/videos and having to take and answer questions - that’s a scary place for a self proclaimed leader who knows more about anything that anybody alive, and who come to him to hear this unbounded complete knowledge...
... have you no sympathy for the man, having the ability to freely stand up and have his every word recorded and transmitted to the entire world instantly (not just an echo chamber)

Poor man. Completely left detached from an ability to talk to the world...
 
roman totale said:
I’ve lived here 20 years now and in my experience, it’s largely two, somewhat interrelated, things.

First, the levels of religious belief. This has been commented on by many of us here and written about in books by much wiser people than me, so I won’t retread it all, but in the US the grifters and the right wing have figured out how to play these rubes with the same tricks they’ve borrowed from the churches. The line from Televangeleist to White Power web forums is a straight-line continuum.

Secondly, it’s resentment of others and the childish reaction to want to destroy things if you can’t have them and to deny them others. All their lives Americans are told they live in the greatest country in the world and everyone wants to be like us. I was actually a bit shocked when I found out my kids were getting told this in kindergarten. I’m getting the sense that it is starting to wane a little as the world globalizes and people get educated (part of the reason globalization and education is an anathema to conservatives) but it still prevails especially in rural/ poor areas. “Hey kid, we both know that your gonna spend your whole life in Shitkicker, West Virginia, but don’t forget you live in the greatest country on earth and god loves ya”
They see other people ‘living their best lives’ making positive choices for themselves and having fun and they just want to destroy them because they can’t have any of that. The truth is, a great many could, but they’re deliberately held back by those who profit off the anger, divisiveness and misery (and here we are back at religion)
Click to expand...
Some of the religious impetus may be a last throw of the dice thing. Fewer Americans go to church, fewer say they believe in God (though still higher than other historically Christian lands), and belief in evolution rather than specific creation has doubled (though only from 9% to 20%). Trump made common cause (abortion, tax breaks for private Christian schools, Israel * ) but it's uncertain how many believe the "chosen one / God's instrument" rhetoric.

If you're a church leader with a mixed (R/D) congregation, you walk a tightrope. If your congregation are 98% Republican, you will now be walking a tightrope between Trumpers and lovers of democracy.

* tricky this, as US Christian support for Israel is nearly all on the basis that the Jews are all going to convert.

On the more general stuff, the present malaise is not just poverty-driven but no-way-out-of-poverty-driven. Once upon a time in America, 90% of Americans could expect to be better off than their parents, now it's 50/50. Shorn of the "no difference" nonsense, if Democrats don't do something about disparity of wealth (and health, and opportunity) this will just fester.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Allowing for corporate desires IS and SHOULD BE part of democracy. So should VOTING for REPRESENTATIVES who WRITE LAWS to REGULATE corporate desires.
Click to expand...
See we disagree, no need to shout, you are sounding like Donald now.

Corporations should have zero influence on democracy because in my world corporations would not exist. Corporate power is killing democracy, Big corporations, like Google, Facebook, and Apple start by appropriating technologies developed at the public expense by governments and universities. Workers are exploited for profit. Low wages and poor labour regulations are the norm Corporations rely on plundering the planet of natural and social resource. The largest cost of resource extraction is environmental destruction and corporate risk is externalized and the public pay through a system of Corporate Socialism.

And people on here wonder why I am not happy with the expansion of corporate power into the political realm with their banning of Trump. They are already too powerful, they need reining in and cut down to size.

Because SWPs bless his little cotton's cannot see that this type of move is a step towards Oligarchy, he is sweet though and gets very sweary at times :))
 
squirtyflower said:
I’ve read a lot of posts in here eulogising over the Big Tech’s banning of certain topics.
That’s all well and good when you are against or dislike those topics but what will they feel when it’s their turn to be banned on the whim of some billionaire’s company?
Click to expand...
Murdoch of course has a great reputation for offering a ready platform to socialists.
 
JASR said:
But that means not using other people’s words/videos and having to take and answer questions - that’s a scary place for a self proclaimed leader who knows more about anything that anybody alive, and who come to him to hear this unbounded complete knowledge...
... have you no sympathy for the man, having the ability to freely stand up and have his every word recorded and transmitted to the entire world instantly (not just an echo chamber)

Poor man. Completely left detached from an ability to talk to the world...
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. No press in attendance - just make a statement. Thing is of course thats not him is it? He wants that control of his Twitter account to blurt out his bull shit commentary on life. Continued TV appearances would open him up to ridicule and he knows it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top