President Trump and the Mob

[ap3st3r]

I think his tenure as Commander in Chief is getting pretty ridiculous. Four people died last night in the protests. Is our Democracy going to survive his last 13 days? 

[Samuels 1st MRB]

As with all politics I don't want to get preachy but it is kind of unavoidable given the recent events. 

 

These are unprecedented times for sure.  And I know it was plastered all over the news that this was/and is one of the few days that will live in infamy in the United States' history.  It is pretty clear that the divides in our country (US) run deep and will likely not be healed for some time.  Some think that it may get much worse from here before it gets better, but everything with Trump the past 4 years has come to this moment.  The fact that there had to be a loss of life yesterday in something that is nothing more than ceremonial is beyond reprehensible and is downright shameful as a nation. We are fortunate that there was some common sense among the leaders of a certain party to drop most of the rhetoric and do the duty that they should have done from the start. 

 

But to get back to the main point, the country, republic, and democracy will survive as it has in the past.  But our credibility, prestige, and status of the nation has been severly damaged on both the world stage and in  the eyes of the citizenry.  But just because it is damaged does not mean it is broken beyond repair.  

[Cubey]

16 hours ago, ap3st3r said:

I think his tenure as Commander in Chief is getting pretty ridiculous. Four people died last night in the protests. Is our Democracy going to survive his last 13 days? 

1. I do not know what kind of rules this forum has. There is a lot of mass censorship these days so I do not know what you censor on your forums. If you want to discuss this with me further, you can add me on steam, and we can discuss it in a lot of detail. That includes anyone else on this forum. 
2. Interesting story, there is a member of your community, who had me added on steam, and he was discussing Trump with me. After I corrected a lot of his false information about Trump, and he ran out of responses back to me, he just said "you are a racist" (the usual response), ran away from the conversation, and blocked me. It is really sad to see people this closed-minded who cannot be willing to get challenged. 
3. I will just say that there is a tremendous amount of false information by the media around Trump and this incident. I will not say more because I am worried this forum will censor me (sad days we are living in). So all I am going to say is, there is a lot of false information about Trump, and blaming it on him, and what he is and is not responsible for. 
4. Back in June, there was a lot of protests by a certain group (which I will not say the name of because of censorship reasons). During those months many people died. That group was a wing of the Dem party. The people of the Dem party did not condemn the violence. I seen main media platforms have professors on their show that outright argued on live TV that "property damage is not violence". I seen anchors on live TV media argue that "who says that protests need to be peaceful?". I seen Dem party members continually dodge the question of violence being done by this group. The media kept on saying how the protests were "mostly peaceful" despite burning buildings, and dead people, ect, and they kept on telling how how the group is not responsible for this. But now, they did a complete 180 degree turn, and everything they been saying for months is not the opposite. This is propaganda at its finest. 

Quote

But to get back to the main point, the country, republic, and democracy will survive as it has in the past.

I disagree with this statement. This, and I am not exaggerating, is the end of America. The reason is very simple. Never before in American history have I heard party members calling for censorship laws and "truth committees" that you have in authoritarian countries. Some American people dislike Trump so much that they rather see the most sacred Amendment, the first Amendment, be completely destroyed, and side with the party of Censorship and the party that openly called for laws for the persecution of dissidents, than to see Trump be re-elected. It is not about Trump being re-elected or not that is the problem. It is the problem that the Dem party turned in the party of pro-censorship, and they will go after their opponents from this day forward.

Here are the exact steps that will happen in the days that follow. First, Trump will be banned from twitter. Second, Dem party will call for the persecution of Trump and attempt to imprison him. Third, the Party will eliminate the Electoral College, eliminate the Supreme Court, and possibly eliminate the Senate (they all openly mentioned this many times).  Fourth, the Party will possibly add new states to the US which will definitely vote in favor of their Party. Fifth, the Party will pass "hate speech laws" which, in actuality, will persecute anyone who speaks up against the party. Sixth, the Party will seek to pass laws controlling information on the internet and what people get to see. Seventh, the Party will pass "anti hate laws" which will put people in prison which are dissents of their cause.  Eigth, the Party will entirely abolish the US Constitution under the pretense that it is a "racist document", the Bill of Rights will be removed, and they will install a "Social Constitution" which will only be filled with their Party values. 

 

None of this is going to happen in just 2 years, or 4 years, this will happen possibly over 10 to 20 years. But it will happen because from this point one it will be one-Party one-Rule coming forward, permanently. 

 

I hope I am wrong. I hope that in a few years we can all read this post and say "Wow, you are so wrong, you cannot possibly have been any wronger". I pray to Science that I am wrong. But all my observations lead to this conclusion. 

 

Another possibility is that the United States will secede. Once it becomes clear that the Party is a permanent Party and they are in favor of all those policies that I described above, then some of the non-cult states will secede. The question is whether the Party will go to war with those states, that issue I do not have a prediction on. 

[Marsden 1st MRB]

2 hours ago, Cubey said:

1. I do not know what kind of rules this forum has. There is a lot of mass censorship these days so I do not know what you censor on your forums. If you want to discuss this with me further, you can add me on steam, and we can discuss it in a lot of detail. That includes anyone else on this forum. 
2. Interesting story, there is a member of your community, who had me added on steam, and he was discussing Trump with me. After I corrected a lot of his false information about Trump, and he ran out of responses back to me, he just said "you are a racist" (the usual response), ran away from the conversation, and blocked me. It is really sad to see people this closed-minded who cannot be willing to get challenged. 
3. I will just say that there is a tremendous amount of false information by the media around Trump and this incident. I will not say more because I am worried this forum will censor me (sad days we are living in). So all I am going to say is, there is a lot of false information about Trump, and blaming it on him, and what he is and is not responsible for. 
4. Back in June, there was a lot of protests by a certain group (which I will not say the name of because of censorship reasons). During those months many people died. That group was a wing of the Dem party. The people of the Dem party did not condemn the violence. I seen main media platforms have professors on their show that outright argued on live TV that "property damage is not violence". I seen anchors on live TV media argue that "who says that protests need to be peaceful?". I seen Dem party members continually dodge the question of violence being done by this group. The media kept on saying how the protests were "mostly peaceful" despite burning buildings, and dead people, ect, and they kept on telling how how the group is not responsible for this. But now, they did a complete 180 degree turn, and everything they been saying for months is not the opposite. This is propaganda at its finest. 

I disagree with this statement. This, and I am not exaggerating, is the end of America. The reason is very simple. Never before in American history have I heard party members calling for censorship laws and "truth committees" that you have in authoritarian countries. Some American people dislike Trump so much that they rather see the most sacred Amendment, the first Amendment, be completely destroyed, and side with the party of Censorship and the party that openly called for laws for the persecution of dissidents, than to see Trump be re-elected. It is not about Trump being re-elected or not that is the problem. It is the problem that the Dem party turned in the party of pro-censorship, and they will go after their opponents from this day forward.

Here are the exact steps that will happen in the days that follow. First, Trump will be banned from twitter. Second, Dem party will call for the persecution of Trump and attempt to imprison him. Third, the Party will eliminate the Electoral College, eliminate the Supreme Court, and possibly eliminate the Senate (they all openly mentioned this many times).  Fourth, the Party will possibly add new states to the US which will definitely vote in favor of their Party. Fifth, the Party will pass "hate speech laws" which, in actuality, will persecute anyone who speaks up against the party. Sixth, the Party will seek to pass laws controlling information on the internet and what people get to see. Seventh, the Party will pass "anti hate laws" which will put people in prison which are dissents of their cause.  Eigth, the Party will entirely abolish the US Constitution under the pretense that it is a "racist document", the Bill of Rights will be removed, and they will install a "Social Constitution" which will only be filled with their Party values. 

 

None of this is going to happen in just 2 years, or 4 years, this will happen possibly over 10 to 20 years. But it will happen because from this point one it will be one-Party one-Rule coming forward, permanently. 

 

I hope I am wrong. I hope that in a few years we can all read this post and say "Wow, you are so wrong, you cannot possibly have been any wronger". I pray to Science that I am wrong. But all my observations lead to this conclusion. 

 

Another possibility is that the United States will secede. Once it becomes clear that the Party is a permanent Party and they are in favor of all those policies that I described above, then some of the non-cult states will secede. The question is whether the Party will go to war with those states, that issue I do not have a prediction on. 

I mean you are right in that Trump did not call for the storming of the capitol building and that it is being misrepresented in the media about the extremists who took it onto themselves to attempt to "protest" in such a way. Just as the actions of smaller satellites of dissidents around the black lives matter protests in the summer where misrepresented. This is simply a matter of course with the American News Media, regardless of which side's puppet news station you are watching. For example, I live in Portland Oregon. Was there violence and property destruction? Yes, several of the "protests" this summer degraded into Riots. But only after the Policing agencies escalated force against what was at the time peaceful protests. After tear gas and less than leathal rounds were fired into the crowd, the crowds they responded with violence and property damage. When these action stopped being taken against protestors  said protestors stopped taking actions against the police, and stopped destroying property. The Federal Marshall's then came in, and began instigating the crowds again with beatings of protestors and the return of tear gas, which resulted in an escalation from the protestors yet again. Then the Local and State Police informed the Federal Marshall's that they were to desist and once they did the property damage and violence from the protestors.

 

Where the protestors right to escalate and retaliate? No, of course not. Were the "riots" misrepresented in Right Wing media? Yes as half the story was portrayed as it painted a better picture for their target demographic. Where the actions of the extremist elements undersold and minimized by left wing media? Yes as half that story was portrayed to again enure the best picture being painted for their target demographic. capitalism isn't about what is true, or right for you, or right for me, or right for everyone. It is about WHAT SELLS and the allmighty Dollar. Ask anyone runnin that hustle in the hood, or puttin the screws in to build the houses we live in or offices we work in, or the people negotiating the deals in the board room that decide what work goes where and who stays employed and who doesn't. They all do it for one reason, it's all about the Benjamins baby.

 

As for your concerns of us censoring you, Don't spew bigoted rhetoric and voice your opinion in a respectable and intelligible manner as you have done and you are fine. You are allowed to have whatever your opinion you like, you can share it if you like, but we will not tolerate bigotry and discrimination within our community. Think of it the way the Military was before Obama. We won't ask if you don't tell.

[Cubey]

54 minutes ago, Marsden 1st MRB said:

I mean you are right in that Trump did not call for the storming .....

My point was that the media representation of the Trump protests were completely different from their coverage of the Bureau of Land Management protests. When for months and months the news anchors were either condoning or explaining those protests and telling their viewers "this is a small group of people, ect". But with the Trump protests they immediately said this was a terrorist act, that Trump is responsible, and his supporters are to take blame for all of this, they immediately censored him (a taste of the censorship which is to come from the Dem party) from his account, some even called for the removal of all Rep party members. 

 

I remember when some guy, in Wisconsin, was shot by the police, because he physically assaulted his former wife, and kidnapped her children, violated a restraining order, and was fleeing from the police when they were ordering him to stand down, while reaching for a weapon, the news media conveniently ignored all of those crucial facts and simply reported "man shot in the back by police". After the protests started, the news media, yet again, was reporting that these were mostly peaceful protests that were completely justified and even Kalama traveled there, while pretending to care, in order to interview the shot man (as a publicity stunt for herself). 

 

Any news organization that blatantly omits all of this information is a fake news organization that spreads lies to divide people. 

 

The worst part of all, and this is why I call it the cult-of-the-Dem-party, and why not the same title for the Rep party, is that Dem party members had an extremely hard time to condemn the violent protests. A surefire way to know if someone is in a cult is by showing them an act of violence and asking them if they condemn it. When someone starts to hesitate, or rationalize, pause at the question, then they are in a cult. They realize something is wrong, but cannot leave the cult and need a way to reconcile. 

 

Compare the Trump protests with how the conservative biased media handled it. All main conservatives shows that I seen, maybe there are exceptions that I do not know of, all of them immediately condemned it and said that is not how civilized people act. Notice that big difference. The CNN (fake news) anchors cannot condemn that Land Management protests, including Dem party members, but when I talk with Rep party members, none of them that I talk with hesitate to condemn the actions. 

 

Furthermore, the Land Management protests were attacking civilians. Burning down civilian houses, cars, bystanders, ect. You seen videos of them attacking people in restaurants. All over the country, for months. What did the Trump protesters do? They stormed the Capitol, not some innocent civilians, for 'just' a single day. Is the damage in any way comparable? Both of acts of violence but attacking innocent civilians that have nothing to do with your problems is far worse. And yet the fake news media never condemned the violence being done to innocent civilians.

 

This is why the news coverage of Trump and the protests have been completely dishonest. 

 

Quote

As for your concerns of us censoring you, Don't spew bigoted rhetoric and voice your opinion in a respectable and intelligible manner as you have done and you are fine. You are allowed to have whatever your opinion you like, you can share it if you like, but we will not tolerate bigotry and discrimination within our community. Think of it the way the Military was before Obama. We won't ask if you don't tell.

Here is the problem with what you said, and I am saying you are doing this, but I have dealt with this and seen it happen countless times. When people are pro-censorship, and again I am not saying you are, but in general, they say "just do not say bigoted stuff on our servers". If I write, 'Bureau of Land Management', they will ban me, and tell me that, because I did not refer to the movement by their self-described name I am clearly a white nationalist that needs to be censored. That is pretty messed up vague censor because they decide what is "bigoted" and then apply it for anyone who challenges their views. 

 

This is just something I dealt with a lot and seen people deal with a lot (for instance, I seen entire channels purged from existence, without warning, for simply having Charles Murray, who is an intelligence researcher, get completely banned, for simply having a scientist discuss his research the strongly challenges the Dem-cult belief.) 

 

Quote

Would be great if we could actually have a serious candidate for President to bring everyone together. Everyone has been a joke since Bush.

I think Trump did actually unify a lot of people together. He did cause great hatred towards him and his movement coming from the Dem party. But that is where the media comes in. If the media was honest and fair then Trump would not have any level of hatred he has today. Trump made massive improvements in every single demographic since his first election. I seen rallies of his where Amish people were showing up, Hasidic Jews were showing up, ect. I seen Trump rallies across the world, such as 'Make Honk Kong Great Again', ect. He was nominated for 4 Nobel peace prizes. He stopped wars from taking place. The first president to not start a new war since WW2. 

 

Trump is not a good person. But in some bizarre and comical way he did what you said. He was the first "president of the people" that the US had in a very long time. Not part of any establishment, and all the love he had, was from the people, not from the elites. But much of this what I say is not understood about Trump because the media is truly making people turn on him and think he is the most evil man ever. 

 

For the longest time people were saying, "there needs to be a people's president". And he was one. Very imperfect, with a ton of problems, but he was that guy. So I disagree with you. He was not a serious candidate, he was a joke candidate, but somehow he did actually bring many people together, including people around the world. 

[Samuels 1st MRB]

5 hours ago, Cubey said:

Here are the exact steps that will happen in the days that follow. First, Trump will be banned from twitter. Second, Dem party will call for the persecution of Trump and attempt to imprison him. Third, the Party will eliminate the Electoral College, eliminate the Supreme Court, and possibly eliminate the Senate (they all openly mentioned this many times).  Fourth, the Party will possibly add new states to the US which will definitely vote in favor of their Party. Fifth, the Party will pass "hate speech laws" which, in actuality, will persecute anyone who speaks up against the party. Sixth, the Party will seek to pass laws controlling information on the internet and what people get to see. Seventh, the Party will pass "anti hate laws" which will put people in prison which are dissents of their cause.  Eigth, the Party will entirely abolish the US Constitution under the pretense that it is a "racist document", the Bill of Rights will be removed, and they will install a "Social Constitution" which will only be filled with their Party values

I’ll briefly address some of your points Cubey because I feel like you started off on the right foot but kinda went all over the place with some points that are simple rhetoric and won’t actually happen. 

1.  Yes, Trump will likely be banned from Twitter.  Propagating false, misleading, and inflammatory information by itself has shown to not be enough to be banned over the past several years.  Only after doing it for so long and having it all culminate in what occurred on 1/6/21 will likely lead to the ban.

 

2.  They can call for his imprisonment all they want, and personally I believe rightly so because IMO he’s committed multiple federal and state law crimes.  But I believe we’ll probably see something similar to what happened with Nixon/Ford on the federal level.  What New York and Georgia do with the State law crimes is going to be independent of what the political parties call for.  I like to believe as an office of the Court (attorney) that most other people in my profession act on the law and not on political pressure.  My belief on that is based on how we see a failure to bring charges against police for murder when people have been killed by them as the facts of those cases tends to not fall in with the legal definition for the crimes.

 

3.  Democrats have said that they will eliminate the Electoral College for a long time now.  They said they would do it during the Obama years, and even when they were in power and controlled both houses then they were not able to accomplish that. 
 

4.  Yes, it’s entirely possibly that adding new States could result in them becoming a new voting bloc for 1 party.  DC has always been a liberal and progressive bloc.  But simply adding new States might fragment the Democratic Party with more left leaning people.  And there’s never a guarantee that any particular state or demographic will vote a particular way.  We saw that with this past 2 election cycles.

 

5.  This is a tricky one because as an avid supporter of the 1st Amendment the rhetoric that has come out from the Left is in fact troubling.  I’m confident that no laws will be passed regarding censorship and even if they are the Supreme Court will not allow them to remain.  Notwithstanding that, public opinion and public censorship is a very real thing and has become an issue in censoring thoughts, ideas, and discussion on a myriad of issues that in the past we could discuss without being offended.  Without getting into a huge rant on “cancel” culture and the problems that it presents, I think any “laws” that may come about in this area will easily be defeated and struck down by the Courts.

 

6.  This will not happen. The UN has declared that access to the internet is a human right in this day and age.  Now while the US does not have the best track record with abiding by what the UN says, with the current administration being very Centrist, there will not be any restriction to internet access.  Likely we will see a return of Net Neutrality from the FCC when the appointments are revisited and there will be a greater expanse in access to it by those across the country.

 

7.  Hate to tell you but these already exist and are called “hate crimes.”  “Hate speech” is not protected under the 1st Amendment and most criminal laws in the county include sentencing enhancements when the crimes are associated with “hate speech” or racial groups/minorities.

 

8.  Not going to happen.  The snowflakes on the left and right can bitch and moan all they want but it won’t be abolished. 
 

2 hours ago, Cubey said:

I think Trump did actually unify a lot of people together.

 He unified both people with common sense to see how unfit he was for the office and that he needed to be removed one way or the other.  But he also brought together the worst aspects of America that previously were forced to hide out of shame.  He normalized racist, bigoted, sexist, and idiotic behavior and all those people in the country like that felt that they could do do the same as the President acted that way.
 

Moreover he unified people around the world AGAINST America.  He always preached “America first” but in doing so he made us a laughing stock on the world stage and made other countries band together and showed that the US cannot always be trusted to honor its commitment to its Allies. So in a horrible sense, yes, he did unify people at home and around the world.

 

 

2 hours ago, Cubey said:

The first president to not start a new war since WW2

This is a true statement.  However while not starting any wars and running on the premises that he would pull troops out of the Middle East, he made the world a more dangerous place for America.  And I won’t go into every since instance because we would be at our computers all day just typing but, take North Korea, pulling out of the Iran Nuclear deal, pulling troops out of Syria leaving our allies to be killed by Turkey are just a few of the instances at least globally that made the world less stable.

 

2 hours ago, Cubey said:

He was the first "president of the people" that the US had in a very long time. Not part of any establishment, and all the love he had, was from the people, not from the elites. But much of this what I say is not understood about Trump because the media is truly making people turn on him and think he is the most evil man ever. 

This is also tricky.  He did run on a pseudo-populist platform in 2016, but he quickly transitioned more of an authoritarian vision of his Presidency.  The media worked both ways.  The media was instrumental in creating him and elevating him in 2016, but since then has polarized with some basically making him the second coming of Christ or the anti-Christ depending on what outlet you watch.  (Yes this is a gross generalization).  
 

Personally, I think he is evil.  Even before he took office the things he said and believed (if we even know what he believes/stands for anymore) just are things that normal people don’t.  He incited his own supporters to not concede and in essence march on the Capitol and intimidate lawmakers.  He caged and separated migrant/immigrant children from their families (regardless of how you stand on immigration this is morally and ethically wrong).  He is not a moral, ethical, or empathetic person.   

[Scinta]

Caesar got a mob to attack the senate, he's just plagiarizing at this point.

[Cubey]

I am responding to Samuels. 

 

First, I need to get to the censorship part immediately because that is by far the most important part. 

 

Let me begin by saying is that I do not think you are a "avid supporter of the 1st Amendment", every single person that I come across, tells me how much they support free speech, but when it comes to actual issues that happen in the real world, you see people cave and demand a censor. I think you are doing the same thing and I will explain so in the paragraphs below.

 

In the earlier paragraph you said, "Propagating false, misleading, and inflammatory information", and by your tone, and you can correct me if I am wrong here, from your tone it sounds like you are supporting the Twitter censorship that took place right now.

 

A true advocate of free-expression-of-ideas, somebody like myself, does not censor just because somebody posts false information, or inflammatory information. Trump is the president of the US, he is supposed to represent the views of his followers, and you do not get to censor that just because you do not like that. 

The whole point of free speech means that offensive and false speech gets said from time to time. You cannot tell me that "this is okay to say, but I determined this is wrong and I will censor you". The moment you do that you want a body to decide what information goes around. And thus you do not support free speech. 

 

I get the impression that you are also a Dem supporter, but sadly, like most Dem supporters I come across, you are not in favor of free speech, you want censorship. Just because you personally allow more things to be said than the more radical Dems does not mean you are one of the free speech types. 

 

Your earlier comment about hate speech is incorrect. There are no hate speech laws in the US, at least not yet. Members of the KKK can rally together. There is no law against that. There are hate crimes laws that add extra sentencing for somebody already doing a crime but no hate speech laws by themselves. 

 

But do not worry. This will change. With the Dem Party, the one True Party, all dissidents will be targetted as hate speech speakers and sent to prison, as happened countless times in history. It is just a vague label that gets assigned to anyone against your party. 

 

As I am writing this Trump has been permanently banned from Twitter, it happened much sooner than expected. On top of it, alternative media platforms are being banned from Google sharing. Some Dems are now calling for utility companies to ban cable news from airing from television. Exactly as I predicted the Dem party is the pro-Censorship party and more moderate Dems are being sucked into a cult of hate-Trump and go along with all the terrible censorship (or at least turn a blind eye to it). 

 

What you are doing, and this is what many more moderate Dems do, and you can correct me if I am mis-representing your views here, is coping. Coping with that their party is hardcore pro-Censorship. So what more moderate Dems is say something like, "Trump is a terrorist, he needs to be banned, he is calling for violence, that is messed up". Okay, even assuming that is true (it is not), what does his censorship have anything to do with the Censorship proposals against Fox, NewsMax, and OAN? What does his Censorship have anything to do with Google banning alternative media platforms from their services? What does his Censorship have anything to do with banning an intelligence scientist from various platforms? 

 

It is coping. Coping that the Dem party are the "good guys". The Dem party are not the good guys. Most individual members of the Dem party are good guys, but they sadly stuck in a cult and end up doing, or at least going along with, terrible things their Party does and are afraid to speak up (party because they are afraid to get censored themselves). For instance, how many Dems were speaking up strongly against the violence back in June, or speaking up against the Censorship? Very few. Most are scared to be censored and cope by saying "but Trump is the bad guy", and their Party keeps on doing terrible things.  

 

What ever happened to the idea: I may not agree with what you have to say but I will give up my life to defend your right to say it? 

 

[Samuels 1st MRB]

42 minutes ago, Cubey said:

I do not think you are a "avid supporter of the 1st Amendment", every single person that I come across, tells me how much they support free speech, but when it comes to actual issues that happen in the real world, you see people cave and demand a censor. I think you are doing the same thin

That's your right to say even though you're incorrect.  I love debate which is why I pursued the profession I'm in.  Its always your right to tell me your opinion, and it's my right to tell you you're wrong.  I've actually written an articles about Free Speech and an unpublished article about the same.  They're not opinion articles and more legal in nature but I can send you those if you care for some light reading.

 

49 minutes ago, Cubey said:

from your tone it sounds like you are supporting the Twitter censorship that took place right now.

Until January 6, 2021 I did not support any censorship, even of the current President.  But the fact that his acts and words were a direct cause of the events that took place I do believe in this case it was warranted.  I understand that it does create a slippery slope as what could stop this from occurring to others, but there's plenty of other false and misleading information that is on the internet, even on Twitter, Facebook etc that is not subject to this. 

 

51 minutes ago, Cubey said:

Trump is the president of the US, he is supposed to represent the views of his followers, and you do not get to censor that just because you do not like that. 

As a candidate, yes.  As a congressional or state representative or senator, yes.  As the President of the United States, no.  He represents ALL Americans, not just his followers.  Yes, all politicians want to, and do cater to their political base, which Trump clearly has done as we all see.  I believe the instant matter is different from that which he has done in the past.  First, by looking at the past 4 years, he's said a myriad of things which people have found offensive, misleading, inflammatory, racist, sexist, and the list can go on.  He called for fraud in the 2016 election as well, but he was not censored.  When a person died in the Charlottesville Protests (for lack of a better term or whatever people will call it) and Trump said "bad people on both sides," there was outrage and the same calls as we see now, but he was not censored.  The biggest difference between these instances is that here Trumps words and actions directly influenced this.

 

Trump explicitly told his supporters to walk to the Capitol to confront lawmakers, specifically the ones who would vote for ratifying the electoral vote.  5 People have died as a direct result of this "egging on."  This has come after multiple months of pushing false information into the public.  He sowed the seeds of distrust in the system.  And yes, Freedom of Speech does allow for him to say these things.  And yes, he, and others are allowed to say things which they may believe that others may not like.  But not all speech is protected.  

 

Legally, the following topics are not protected speech whatsoever and may be regulated and prohibited by the government.

• Obscenity
• Fighting words
• Defamation (including libel and slander)
• Child pornography
• Perjury
• Blackmail
• Incitement to imminent lawless action
• True threats
• Solicitations to commit crimes
• **It has also been debated whether verbal discussions as to treason fall within unprotected speech but this is not been explored by the legal community or the courts

Now here, Trump explicitly provoked his supports to engage in lawless action.  Although some may say that this falls under some of the other prohibited speech topics this is the only one that legally is applicable.  But I will not delve too far into the legalese as this is not the point.

 

1 hour ago, Cubey said:

I get the impression that you are also a Dem supporter, but sadly, like most Dem supporters I come across, you are not in favor of free speech, you want censorship.

Although I am a registered democrat I do not vote blindly down ticket and this is irrelevant to our discussion.  Although you're correct that there are many democratic supporters that fall into that category, it is an unfortunate assumption to make for all.  I'm not in favor of censorship, as I previously stated I enjoy the open debate, and  I'm actually

 

frustrated at the current culture that has developed in the US and abroad that people become so easily offended by topics and issues that we could have discussed 5/6 years ago.

 

1 hour ago, Cubey said:

This will change. With the Dem Party, the one True Party, all dissidents will be targetted as hate speech speakers and sent to prison, as happened countless times in history. It is just a vague label that gets assigned to anyone against your party. 

 

I still disagree with your statement here.  Regardless of whether the Democratic Party is in power, the laws that exist, and the scores of Federal and State Judges who interpret these laws will not rule in favor of restrictions on speech in this manner.  Speech, legally, can be restricted based upon the type of forum that it occurs in. See here if you want to read on the different types of forums and how speech can be restricted in them.  I won't post any lectures here.

 

1 hour ago, Cubey said:

There are no hate speech laws in the US, at least not yet. Members of the KKK can rally together. There is no law against that. There are hate crimes laws that add extra sentencing for somebody already doing a crime but no hate speech laws by themselves. 

Correct.  But the simple fact that there is no laws against this does not negate that hate speech is morally and ethically wrong.  Notwithstanding my opinion on this, as long as such speech does not fall within the unprotected types of speech that i listed above, anyone is free to use hate speech.

 

1 hour ago, Cubey said:

What you are doing, and this is what many more moderate Dems do, and you can correct me if I am mis-representing your views here, is coping. Coping with that their party is hardcore pro-Censorship. So what more moderate Dems is say something like, "Trump is a terrorist, he needs to be banned, he is calling for violence, that is messed up". Okay, even assuming that is true (it is not), what does his censorship have anything to do with the Censorship proposals against Fox, NewsMax, and OAN? What does his Censorship have anything to do with Google banning alternative media platforms from their services? What does his Censorship have anything to do with banning an intelligence scientist from various platforms? 

Sorry, but you are misrepresenting my views.  I'm strongly against the misrepresentation that those platforms and networks push out into the media.  But I do not believe that stopping their stream of information will stop their ideas.  I believe the opposite, it will only strengthen the push for those types of media.  Like I said above, I'm a strong believer in debate and discussion.  IMO the best way to change someone's opinion is through debate and discussion.  But I do know that this does not always work as some people are just too rooted and stubborn in their beliefs.  

 

1 hour ago, Cubey said:

Coping that the Dem party are the "good guys". The Dem party are not the good guys. Most individual members of the Dem party are good guys, but they sadly stuck in a cult and end up doing, or at least going along with, terrible things their Party does and are afraid to speak up (party because they are afraid to get censored themselves).

I agree.  I am firmly against most of what the party leadership does.  Most of what they say is simple rhetoric.  I won't get too off topic because that's not the point of this thread, but I agree with this statement.

 

1 hour ago, Cubey said:

What ever happened to the idea: I may not agree with what you have to say but I will give up my life to defend your right to say it? 

And I don't know.  Informed debate is what this country was founded on, and its the root of why public news television was initially given its air-time back when TV was invented.  Sadly, the informed debate that we need has been diluted and masked by the countless misinformation outlets that have popped up over the years.  But even though it's misinformation, as long as it does not fall within non-protected speech, as outlined above, then they have a right to say it even though I personally disagree with it. 

[Cubey]

Mr. Samuels 

 

Since you take a lot of time to respond back perhaps it would be better to continue this in discord/teamspeak? I am sure you had a lot of stuff you wanted to say that you could not because of text limination. Usually people avoid audio discussion because of time constraints, but in your case you indicate you are willing to put in time into the conversation. An direct conservation also avoids people of mis-representating each other views, which we have to a degree in any back-and-forth-conversation. Currently, I am not working until the end of January so I can committ to whatever time you decide. Anyone else who wishes to join the conversation can listen or contribute. Let us make this thread great again. 

 

If, however, you choose to decline, then I will spend time writing out a response back. 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Cubey

[Samuels 1st MRB]

By all means.  Feel free to join us in Discord whenever you have time.  This weekend is tough for me as I have work to deal with both IRL and for the MRB.  
 

But generally you can find me in Discord any time past 8/9PM EST during the week.