Would a Progressive Society be a Free Society?

[Ray From Cleveland]

What do you mean “let”? No one needs to ask for your permission.

No, they don't, they need the permission of the US Constitution which they don't have.

 

[Marener]

No, they don't, they need the permission of the US Constitution which they don't have.

The constitution limits the government, not us.

We don’t get permission from the constitution to live our lives. The constitution prevents government from getting involved in our lives.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Foreign interference in our election is a federal crime so the federal bureau of investigation would be involved.

Foreign interference utilizes social media as a primary tool.

Your claims of DoJ politicization against the right are nonsense. You’re just too biased to see that sometimes people in your political side are criminals.

Oh please. The FBI got phony warrants to spy on a political opponent by lying on the application, and not a thing was done to them about it.

 

[Marener]

Oh please. The FBI got phony warrants to spy on a political opponent by lying on the application, and not a thing was done to them about it.

What are you talking about? The person who wrote that lie was charged and convicted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The constitution limits the government, not us.

We don’t get permission from the constitution to live our lives. The constitution prevents government from getting involved in our lives.

Correct. When the government uses a proxy to violate our constitutional rights, it's no different than when government does it themselves.

 

[Marener]

Correct. When the government uses a proxy to violate our constitutional rights, it's no different than when government does it themselves.

This is different than what you were saying before.

You said that you can’t “let” social media run their sites the way they see fit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is different than what you were saying before.

You said that you can’t “let” social media run their sites the way they see fit.

No, this is what I said:

Either way, we can't let one party control what social media can and can't put out, I don't care if it's Democrat or Republican.

 

[Marener]

No, this is what I said:

A political party is different from the government.

 

[dblack]

Either way, we can't let one party control what social media can and can't put out, I don't care if it's Democrat or Republican.

You guys have an odd conception of a party controlling social media. If government agents are telling these companies what to do, that's obviously unconstitutional, especially if it's done to suppress dissent. That's as un-American as it gets.

But your view is that if the owners of Twitter are Democrats, and they actively promote their ideas and suppress yours, that that is the same thing. And it's not. Democrats are allowed to buy businesses and run them the way the want, just like Republicans.

 

[Man of Ethics]

You guys have an odd conception of a party controlling social media. If government agents are telling these companies what to do, that's obviously unconstitutional, especially if it's done to suppress dissent. That's as un-American as it gets.

But your view is that if the owners of Twitter are Democrats, and they actively promote their ideas and suppress yours, that that is the same thing. And it's not. Democrats are allowed to buy businesses and run them the way the want, just like Republicans.

Agree.

But if one party controls all access to Internet, then we have a Totalitarian Society.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You guys have an odd conception of a party controlling social media. If government agents are telling these companies what to do, that's obviously unconstitutional, especially if it's done to suppress dissent. That's as un-American as it gets.

But your view is that if the owners of Twitter are Democrats, and they actively promote their ideas and suppress yours, that that is the same thing. And it's not. Democrats are allowed to buy businesses and run them the way the want, just like Republicans.

That's not really what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is government pressuring social media to do their bidding, and again, that is unconstitutional. At one time that's what we all thought, that these owners are just commie liberals and that was their political view. Now we're finding out different, and that's what needs to be addressed.

The FBI basically told Facebook and Twitter to not allow the Hunter story to get out. Well they didn't, and the results were election interference that gave us a dementia patient to run this country. And don't kid yourself. People who vote do get their main news from these social media companies, and they are changing our elections. That's the real election fraud.

To put it another way, imagine this in reverse if the FBI were in cahoots with the Republican party under Donald Trump.

FLASHBACK: 16% of Biden voters would have voted differently if Hunter Biden laptop story was not suppressed by media, big tech

A poll previously put out by the Media Research Center showed that fully 16 percent of voters who were unaware of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal would have switched their minds and not voted for Joe Biden for president, had they known about it at the time.

thepostmillennial.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A political party is different from the government.

Not when one political party is the government.

 

[Rambunctious]

The Democrats are Authoritarian...

 

[cnm]

Not when one political party is the government.

The Republicans were the government at the time.

 

[Marener]

Not when one political party is the government.

So if I’m a democrat then I’m the government now?

Of course not.

 

[cnm]

One can see why the LOTUS still has traction. SMH

 

[Marener]

The FBI basically told Facebook and Twitter to not allow the Hunter story to get out.

No, they didn’t. The Twitter files prove this allegation is false.

Do you know how long Twitter kept the story off it’s platform?

Guess.

 

[dblack]

That's not really what we are talking about here.

Some people are. Some people think it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of their politics. Some people want government to regulate the social media companies - ostensibly to prevent them from discriminating. Which is kind of hilarious when you think about it: The solution to the government bullying social media is to give the government more power over social media. ???

What we are talking about is government pressuring social media to do their bidding, and again, that is unconstitutional. At one time that's what we all thought, that these owners are just commie liberals and that was their political view. Now we're finding out different, and that's what needs to be addressed.

Indeed.

The FBI basically told Facebook and Twitter to not allow the Hunter story to get out. Well they didn't, and the results were election interference that gave us a dementia patient to run this country. And don't kid yourself. People who vote do get their main news from these social media companies, and they are changing our elections. That's the real election fraud.

I don't know what the truth of all that is. Both sides are pretty good at just making shit up. But it begs for greater restriction on government engaging in these kinds of activities. It certainly seems like a line was crossed. We need to ensure that line is clearly drawn.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are jobs and many of them where the shit has to be cleaned up. There ais a small percentage who are asses in doing it. Government jobs in these costs a few times more than needed. Due to quotas, diversity and affirmative action. The people who abuse others need to go. Then we deal with this.

Why are we talking about jobs?

 

[Rigby5]

This is different than what you were saying before.

You said that you can’t “let” social media run their sites the way they see fit.

But that is true, you can NOT allow social media, that leverages the vast power of the PUBLIC Internet, to run their sites in biased, discriminatory, unequal, or abusive ways.