Are you comparing, say, the German citizenry preventing the Holocaust to anonymous dudes on the internet debating free speech laws?
Since Burke predates WW2, that would be a no.
Was there a push to primary him? No. Has his approval rating among Republicans been in the 90’s often? Yes. Is his behavior hand waved away by some on this board? Yes. Are his lies? Obviously.
The vast majority of Republicans don’t care about his behavior or lies. His support essentially holds steady no matter what he lies about or how he acts. He is completely invulnerable on the right. They love him. With maybe a handful of actual principled people against him.
If a protest was during Obama’s presidency and he said the same words the righties on this board and across the world would lose their minds and buy 100 more guns on the spot. This? Most of them aren’t bothered by it and an awful lot probably agree.
But these things are so normalized since they happen so frequently with Trump that most of this doesn’t register with anyone anymore. It’s like the sun rising in the east. Another day Trump will spout a bunch of lies. He will treat a shit ton of people terribly. And say some things that previous politicians would be in huge trouble for. He will approach his job with zero thought. He will not consider anything he says before saying it.
1 Like
Ok. I thought you were making reference to the actual idea your quote made.
Therein lies the rub. The platform created the content that contained other information. It would not be an issue had the content been independently submitted by the creator of the “fact-check”.
A link is not content.
The post containing that link is content. For example, you created a post containing a snippet of something I wrote. I did not create the post you made even though it contained words I wrote. You were the content creator of your post.
Well wrapping up my work didn’t take as much time as I expected, mostly because of those silly segregation of duty fraud prevention mechanisms that have me waiting on Tonya again…
This notion fascinates me and I can’t resist popping back in to revisit the question I asked earlier.
Do you believe the possibility exists that a person can be a principled, decent Trump voter?
If so, what what would such a person look like to you, in your words?
1 Like
I think that if one considers themselves fiscally or socially conservative they wouldn’t vote for Trump or support him. Considering these people hated Obama and the fact that Trump has essentially been worse in these areas in many ways I don’t see how. Sloth, big time social conservative on this board, wouldn’t support very early into him running. Why? He wasn’t even close to socially conservative. Even if he didn’t like the Dems he couldn’t bring himself to support something that offended his principles so much. And though we see the world in the exact opposite colors I told him often how impressed I was by that.
My theory is that most of these so called conservatives are simply Republicans. They despise Democrats no matter what they do and support Republicans no matter what they do. I’m not even saying this is bad, it’s how a lot of our two party system works. Dems were ok with Obama doing something that flipped out on over Bush. Republicans squawked about Obamacare and the debt for 8 years. Then they voted for a guy who wanted universal health care and to default on the debt.
I think true fiscal conservatives or social conservatives wouldn’t vote for him just like I think some die hard Bernie people won’t vote for Biden. It’s too offensive to their principles.
If you’re a social conservative how are you not disgusted by Trump? How does he not offend everything you say is important? If you’re fiscal how does he not offend your every sense? No one has talked or cared about the national debt less in the history of the country!
I think most of these people have voted for republicans and will always vote for Republicans. And that’s ok same thing with many Dems. But you can’t be a principled person imo if you are that way. Unless your principle is to only support one party.
So that’s a “no”, correct?
They can be, which is why Section 230 was created in the first place - to create fertile ground for internet platforms to establish without worrying they will get bogged down in frivolous suits for the content they curate, publish, etc.
It doesn’t. The law doesn’t say that and interpretations of it don’t find that. Did you read the article I posted? Or did you skip it because you’re positive it won’t conform to your confirmation bias?
1 Like
It would seem as if at least based on my understanding of what fiscal and social conservatives have proclaimed to stand for in previous that supporting Trump would violate those principles. That’s what I’ve seen said by people who seem principled to me. Like I said that’s ok, but I believe those are simply Republicans. It’s people who have decided at some point that they will be voting for Republicans no matter what. And the Dems have those as well. People who won’t vote for a Republican no matter what. Maybe that is the principle?
But to me if you’ve decided no matter what you will support a Republican or no matter what you will support a Democrat you aren’t really principled in what you stand for you’re principled in the party and not the positions of the party or the parties leader.
I hear you. There’s a long list of misdeeds and bad conduct to consider.
There was a time in my life when I literally could not get my head around why someone might think the way they do with regards to politics in that place, at that time, with what was going on in the world and how important those things were to me. No way, not while holding on to their Decent Person Card.
Have you considered broadening your understanding of other common points of view that you may not necessarily agree with?
I found it good for me, personally, to regain the assumption of good faith. That’s just me though, and it has far less to do with politics than it does other aspects of my life.
From the link:
“Twitter, Facebook and the like are immune as platforms regardless of whether they edit, including in a politicized way,” said Eugene Volokh, a conservative legal scholar at UCLA. “Like it or not, this was a deliberate decision by Congress.”
Bombastic buffoonery aside, do youse all really believe that this should be the law?
And isn’t that @twojarslave’s point? (sorry if I’m putting words in his mouth) That decades later, given the changing of the landscape, this “deliberate decision” is perhaps just a teensy bit outdated? I mean, didn’t we have to type “www” first to obtain access to Al Gore’s domain?
1 Like
Nah, you’re good homie.
Let me remind all of the liberals (DYEL, btw?) that we’re still operating on the decision that was voted on by guys like Sen. Ted Stevens from Alaska, who believed that the internet was a “series of tubes”.
Everyone’s favorite example of a racist old Democrat switching to the Republicans got to vote on it as well, bringing all of the wisdom of his 94 years on the planet to bear on the vote.
(It was not a difficult decision for me to be a teenage liberal in the 90’s guys. Not with these guys for Republicans).
What exactly is stopping you (or anyone) from starting a social media company to compete with Twitter if there’s an audience that doesn’t like Twitter’s services?
Read the posts first, bro.
My worst interwebz nightmare is that I’m “debating” with some douchey dork who I would, perhaps, grace with a supercilious sneer in passing…
Don’t forget the assumption of good faith, my friend. I wouldn’t call anyone out about their lifting in PWI.
Do
You
Even
Liberal
Bro?
1 Like