# trump question?



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

can they at least pass a law, or is there an amendment, or whatever,...to at least BAN him from ever running for elected office again? huh?
tell me there is...

because.....if not.....guess what?......


----------



## fourtwenty (Jan 9, 2021)

jargey3000 said:


> can they at least pass a law, or is there an amendment, or whatever,...to at least BAN him from ever running for elected office again? huh?
> tell me there is...
> 
> because.....if not.....guess what?......


I read somewhere that if they get this 2nd impeachment passed by the senate before his term is over he will not be allowed to run for office anywhere, ever. I don't think it will happen. Not enough Republican Senators will turn on him. They'll be worried about being punished by trump supporters the next time they're up for re-election.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

He could run but he couldn't win. He couldn't even get nominated. His election in 2016 was a fluke, a combination of circumstances that won't be allowed to happen in 2024.
Don't forget he is 74 years old and has all the money he will ever need. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of him, but I am also sure he won't run for office again.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Another idea being considered is to have a separate vote that would prevent Trump from ever holding office again. That could potentially only need a simple majority vote of 51 senators, unlike impeachment, in which two-thirds of the 100-member Senate must support a conviction.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Eder said:


> Another idea being considered is to have a separate vote that would prevent Trump from ever holding office again. That could potentially only need a simple majority vote of 51 senators, unlike impeachment, in which two-thirds of the 100-member Senate must support a conviction.


I like this idea.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If Trump is impeached by the Senate (highly unlikely) he would lose his Presidential pension, secret service protection, and and the free use of Air Force aircraft.

Nothing much happens under Article 25 except that Trump is removed. He can still run again and keep his ex-Presidential privileges.

If Trump is arrested and convicted, he will spend the rest of his life in prison..........problem solved.


----------



## fourtwenty (Jan 9, 2021)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> He could run but he couldn't win. He couldn't even get nominated. His election in 2016 was a fluke, a combination of circumstances that won't be allowed to happen in 2024.
> Don't forget he is 74 years old and has all the money he will ever need. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of him, but I am also sure he won't run for office again.


3 things:

1. I'm sure there are many republicans that can't stand trump, but they can't stand the idea of having a democrat run government more. Maybe if he's gone for 4 years people will have forgotten how bad it got. Don't underestimate the power of tribal politics.
2. People like Trump will never have "enough" money. If anything he will run solely to appease his bruised ego.
3. Another possibility is that he creates his own party and the right vote is split. We have a similar situation here. We routinely have more non-conservative votes than conservative votes. Splitting that across 3 parties is the only way the CPC ever gets power. (Have the PC/Reform/CPC ever gotten 50%+1 of the vote in the modern era?)


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

fourtwenty said:


> 3 things:
> 
> 1. I'm sure there are many republicans that can't stand trump, but they can't stand the idea of having a democrat run government more. Maybe if he's gone for 4 years people will have forgotten how bad it got. Don't underestimate the power of tribal politics.
> 2. People like Trump will never have "enough" money. If anything he will run solely to appease his bruised ego.
> 3. Another possibility is that he creates his own party and the right vote is split. We have a similar situation here. We routinely have more non-conservative votes than conservative votes. Splitting that across 3 parties is the only way the CPC ever gets power. (Have the PC/Reform/CPC ever gotten 50%+1 of the vote in the modern era?)


I think Mulroney was the last popular vote majority.

I think a merged NDP/Liberal party would shift even further left, likely enough for some Liberals to splinter off to CPC.
As well some NDP wouldn't be happy and would go Green.

I don't think things are as clear cut as some may think. When politicians start taking voters for granted, that's really bad.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

sags said:


> If Trump is impeached by the Senate (highly unlikely) he would lose his Presidential pension, secret service protection, and and the free use of Air Force aircraft.
> 
> Nothing much happens under Article 25 except that Trump is removed. He can still run again and keep his ex-Presidential privileges.
> 
> If Trump is arrested and convicted, he will spend the rest of his life in prison..........problem solved.


Not exactly. He has to be impeached *and* convicted (section 4 article ii). If he resigns as president or his term ends before he is convicted he is still entitled to those benefits.

Remember he was already impeached, as was Bill Clinton. But neither were convicted.

_There has to be a removal_ pursuant to section 4 of Article II of the Constitution for him to lose those benefits - it is not likely to happen in the time left.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think any process is clear cut. I have heard Constitutional law experts argue all the possibilities.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

jargey3000 said:


> can they at least pass a law, or is there an amendment, or whatever,...to at least BAN him from ever running for elected office again? huh?
> tell me there is...
> 
> because.....if not.....guess what?......


What are they afraid of?
This would only make sense if you strongly believe 2 things.
1) Trump is so popular he is sure to win in any fair election
2) The Democrats are scared shitless of him, and are willing to pull any dirty trick to thwart the will of the public.

If the Democrats do pull something like this, it amounts to confessing they stole the 2020 election and will stomp democracy into the ground to prevent Trump running again.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Once we get power we will make it illegal for anyone to run against us who has a chance of winning. This is subltly different from Communism that bans any other political party, or Nazism that declares martial law and never has another election, but accomplishes the same goal - a one party dictatorship. As George Orwell put it, imagine a jack boot stamping on a human face - forever.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

If you really believe Sleepy Joe Biden beat Trump in a fair election while snoozing in his basement, how can you believe Trump is a threat against any competent candidate? If he doesn't stand a chance of getting elected or even nominated what is the point of taking away his civil rights, and the rights of the voters, by passing a special law preventing him from running?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> If you really believe Sleepy Joe Biden beat Trump in a fair election while snoozing in his basement, how can you believe Trump is a threat against any competent candidate? If he doesn't stand a chance of getting elected or even nominated what is the point of taking away his civil rights, and the rights of the voters, by passing a special law preventing him from running?


The crazy lefties actually think that half the country is the most evil and deplorable people to have ever existed.
They're shutting down dialog because they don't even want to understand what their concerns are.


Oh and they don't use logic, that's "white colonialism" or some other nonsense


----------



## fourtwenty (Jan 9, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> I think Mulroney was the last popular vote majority.
> 
> I think a merged NDP/Liberal party would shift even further left, likely enough for some Liberals to splinter off to CPC.
> As well some NDP wouldn't be happy and would go Green.
> ...


Oh right. I was 9 years old when mulrooney was first elected so that's ancient history for me lol. You're probably right about votes moving around but I feel like in the last election the liberals lept over the NDP as far as their position on the left/right scale. I guess at the same time the NDP moved more towards center. I think they might have even talked about some fiscal responsibility (unbelievable!)? In the end Turdeau was elected for 2 reasons. Legalize pot and change the election system. NPDers & Greens that voted for him wanted that proportional representation. I had hope but didn't really believe he would fix the broken election system. Proportional rep would have ensured the CPC would never hold the balance of power without a large shift towards center on social issues. If there was an actual federal conservative party that had any sort of progressive social policies I would definitely consider voting for them but they don't exist anymore. Religion has no place in politics and unfortunately religion is the driving force behind many of the CPC policies. There is no good choice for a federal party right now. Only different degrees of bad depending on ones social viewpoint.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

fourtwenty said:


> Oh right. I was 9 years old when mulrooney was first elected so that's ancient history for me lol. You're probably right about votes moving around but I feel like in the last election the liberals lept over the NDP as far as their position on the left/right scale. I guess at the same time the NDP moved more towards center. I think they might have even talked about some fiscal responsibility (unbelievable!)? In the end Turdeau was elected for 2 reasons. Legalize pot and change the election system. NPDers & Greens that voted for him wanted that proportional representation. I had hope but didn't really believe he would fix the broken election system. Proportional rep would have ensured the CPC would never hold the balance of power without a large shift towards center on social issues. If there was an actual federal conservative party that had any sort of progressive social policies I would definitely consider voting for them but they don't exist anymore. Religion has no place in politics and unfortunately religion is the driving force behind many of the CPC policies. There is no good choice for a federal party right now. Only different degrees of bad depending on ones social viewpoint.


I think it's obvious to everyone that the Liberals are fiscally nuts.

I think proportional representation will not result in what people think it will.
1. The Liberals wont' be in power. They benefit huge from strategic voting and know it. That's why it didn't go forward.
2. It puts even more power in the hands of the party leader
3. The individual MPs will have less power and visibility, low population areas will have less representation.

From there one of two things will happen
I think there will be a lot of smaller fringe parties, like Europe.
Parties will merge into two camps and we'll deal with US style tribalism.

I personally think that the Liberals are corrupt and bad and all sorts of nasty things, however I think the threat of a decent opposition normally keeps them from going way too far. Unfortunately Scheer lost the last election, and the Liberals haven't course corrected yet.
When the Liberals are more centrist they can form a decent government. We just need them to wake up and recenter, or lose an election so they can gain some introspection and get themselves sorted out.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Liberals will easily win their 3rd consecutive election.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> The Liberals wont' be in power. They benefit huge from strategic voting and know it. That's why it didn't go forward.


You usually end up with centre-left and centre-right parties that lead coalitions.

I like the idea of MPs representing specific geographical areas, so I prefer models like STV. And because they aren't purely proportional, you tend to get fewer small fringe parties.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> You usually end up with centre-left and centre-right parties that lead coalitions.


Sorry, I meant to say they won't have majorities, or even strong minorities.

Realistically the CPC would split into a Secular and Religious right, and I think the Liberals would split into a more centrist party, and a center left.
there are Liberal true believers, but a lot of their support seems to be ABC.. which is a recipe for failure under PR, or even Ranked ballot.

But yeah, if the Liberals shifted to Center, or even center left, rather than far left I'd be pretty happy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Liberals aren't far left. NDP is far left. The LPC is currently more left than usual, but typically LPC hews to centre-left (and more centrist than CPC). With a more PR system, you might see the LPC not try to cover so much ground, but still need support from the left to govern in a coalition.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Liberals aren't far left. NDP is far left. The LPC is currently more left than usual, but typically LPC hews to centre-left (and more centrist than CPC).


I agree that the LPC today is more left than usual.
I think normally they're center left, and we just differ on where "far left" begins.

I actually think the success of Harper, and failure of Scheer was the ability to moderate or pragmatically refocus the more socially conservative voices. Better to get half of what you want than none of it.
I hope O'Toole can do that as well.

Quite honestly I don't care if the CPC or Liberal has more off-centre constitutents, as long as they govern from the middle.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I would not be concerned about Trump running for office again. He may run...but not for office. He, his family, and his businesses are under criminal investigation in several states, including New York. Not to mention creditors who will be magically appearing once he is out of office. This should keep him busy and his reputation further tarnished.

Besides, not certain if one can run for office while one is incarcerated in a state or in a federal prison system. He might be exchanging his made in China striped silk ties for striped prison garb.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The US military is now guarding the White House and a fence barrier has been erected.

Are they keeping Trump in........or everyone else out ?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

This thread and others like it have been very enlightening to me. If Trump fans amounted to only 1% of the population, and Americans owned no guns, what is there to stop Pelosi and the Democrats from rounding them up, putting them in concentration camps and exterminating them? Now I understand how things got out of hand in Nazi Germany, Kmer Rouge Cambodia, Communist Russia and China, and similar places. 
5 years ago there was no such thing as a Trump fan. Today there are millions who would cheerfully exterminate them all because of politics and media hysteria, most of it based on fantasies, falsehoods and baseless accusations


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> This thread and others like it have been very enlightening to me. If Trump fans amounted to only 1% of the population, and Americans owned no guns, what is there to stop Pelosi and the Democrats from rounding them up, putting them in concentration camps and exterminating them? Now I understand how things got out of hand in Nazi Germany, Kmer Rouge Cambodia, Communist Russia and China, and similar places.
> 5 years ago there was no such thing as a Trump fan. Today there are millions who would cheerfully exterminate them all because of politics and media hysteria, most of it based on fantasies, falsehoods and baseless accusations


Amazing. Where do you get your news, Rusty?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

james4beach said:


> Amazing. Where do you get your news, Rusty?


From this web site and a few others including Youtube and Google searches. Why do you ask?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> most of it based on fantasies, falsehoods and baseless accusations


That's why dialog is so important.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> From this web site and a few others including Youtube and Google searches. Why do you ask?


I ask because I had never heard anything about Pelosi rounding up people to exterminate them. That seems very unlikely and I have never heard any news or analysis that suggests this kind of thing was possible.

That made me wonder where you had read or heard it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> This thread and others like it have been very enlightening to me. If Trump fans amounted to only 1% of the population, and Americans owned no guns, what is there to stop Pelosi and the Democrats from rounding them up, putting them in concentration camps and exterminating them? Now I understand how things got out of hand in Nazi Germany, Kmer Rouge Cambodia, Communist Russia and China, and similar places.
> 5 years ago there was no such thing as a Trump fan. Today there are millions who would cheerfully exterminate them all because of politics and media hysteria, most of it based on fantasies, falsehoods and baseless accusations


Why would they round people up into concentration camps and exterminate them? Why haven't Australians been rounded up and exterminated by their government, despite having far fewer guns?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Have you read this thread and others like it? Talking about taking away the civil rights of Trump and his supporters, now Pelosi has begun another impeachment, even though Trump will be out of office in two weeks and impeachment would take months, if she had any evidence of wrong doing, which she doesn't or she would have used it by now. Trump and his fans are being taken off Facebook Twitter and other social media, when they went to Parler that site was shut down completely. Bernie Sanders supporters were talking about putting Trump supporters in gulags and concentration camps once they gained power. This goes way beyond any political rivalry I ever heard of and cannot be justified by facts. It is as if everyone has gone nuts. It is purely a matter of mass hysteria brought on by a 4 year media campaign to discredit Trump and his supporters, who make up nearly half the country. 5 years ago this hysteria did not exist, now it is not even questioned. All thanks to politics and a media campaign. The lesson to me is how easily people are manipulated and for all intents and purposes, driven mad or delusional.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

If you still don't get it, read this editorial by Matt Taibbi








We Need a New Media System


If you sell culture war all day, don’t be surprised by the real-world consequences




taibbi.substack.com


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Have you read this thread and others like it? Talking about taking away the civil rights of Trump and his supporters, now Pelosi has begun another impeachment, even though Trump will be out of office in two weeks and impeachment would take months, if she had any evidence of wrong doing, which she doesn't or she would have used it by now. Trump and his fans are being taken off Facebook Twitter and other social media, when they went to Parler that site was shut down completely. Bernie Sanders supporters were talking about putting Trump supporters in gulags and concentration camps once they gained power. This goes way beyond any political rivalry I ever heard of and cannot be justified by facts. It is as if everyone has gone nuts. It is purely a matter of mass hysteria brought on by a 4 year media campaign to discredit Trump and his supporters, who make up nearly half the country. 5 years ago this hysteria did not exist, now it is not even questioned. All thanks to politics and a media campaign. The lesson to me is how easily people are manipulated and for all intents and purposes, driven mad or delusional.


Let me guess. You also believed Obama was going to round people up and put them in FEMA camps. Maybe try hyperventilating a bit less.

I am troubled by the control over the internet held by a small group of powerful tech companies. I have been concerned about it since Wikileaks was strangled from receiving support by payment processors. Unfortunately, these platforms are in a really tough spot. They can be laissez faire with content (except where prohibited by law, like threats, child sex abuse material, etc.) but then they are forced to host content that devalues their platform as a space where most people want to converse. I don't think sites like Parler should be shut down, but does that mean Amazon is obliged to provide them hosting services? Does that mean advertisers are forced to buy ads on that platform, even if it earns them opprobrium from the general public?

Bernie Sanders never said anything about putting people in concentration camps. You claim supports of him said so. I've not seen it, and doubt it came from anyone credible. If you want to play that game, we have Trump supporters on video chanting that they wanted to murder the Vice President after breaking into the building he was standing in. 

Trump does not have a right to a Twitter account.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Lost in the discussion is that Trump has been adamant about repealing protection for social media from lawsuits for libel and defamation in the content.

He even vetoed the $740 billion NDAA bill because it didn't include repeal of Section 230. (liability protection for internet companies)

It is clear what he and others want. They want to force the social media to accept any content and then sue them when they do.

Republicans are threatened by social media where citizens can talk about the issues. They want to control it or shut it down.

The Republicans ordered the CEOs to Congress and grilled them for hours. Now it has backfired on them and blew up in their face.

The most vocal Republicans...well known Trumpsters, are now complaining bitterly they have lost many of their "followers".

Yea......a good many of those 75 million Republican voters have moved away from them in disgust.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Let me guess. You also believed Obama was going to round people up and put them in FEMA camps. Maybe try hyperventilating a bit less.
> 
> I am troubled by the control over the internet held by a small group of powerful tech companies. I have been concerned about it since Wikileaks was strangled from receiving support by payment processors. Unfortunately, these platforms are in a really tough spot. They can be laissez faire with content (except where prohibited by law, like threats, child sex abuse material, etc.) but then they are forced to host content that devalues their platform as a space where most people want to converse. I don't think sites like Parler should be shut down, but does that mean Amazon is obliged to provide them hosting services? Does that mean advertisers are forced to buy ads on that platform, even if it earns them opprobrium from the general public?
> 
> ...


There were extremists employed as Bernie Sanders campaign staff.

As far as the platforms, yes, they're in a tough spot.
They simultanously want protection from liability as common carriers, but also want to control the information that passes through their servers.

Either they should allow all (legal) content and maintain immunity, or have the power and responsibility of monitoring all their content. Right now they want it both ways.


The not so big issue is that they banned Parler for activities happening on the other systems. I'm sure anyone who tried would easily be able to find at least 98 instances of inappropriate content on any major social network.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Lost in the discussion is that Trump has been complaining for a long time about removing protection from social media from lawsuits for libel and defamation in the content.
> 
> He even vetoed the $740 billion NDAA bill because it didn't include repeal of Section 230. (liability protection for internet companies)
> 
> It is clear what he and others want. They want to force the social media to accept any content and then sue them when they do.


No either accept all content without liability, or be held liable for the content they do allow.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> They simultanously want protection from liability as common carriers, but also want to control the information that passes through their servers.


I don't think anyone would like those two alternatives better than the status quo.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I don't think anyone would like those two alternatives better than the status quo.


Many disagree.
They should only be granted immunity if it is in the public interest for them to have it.

I think you're only okay with them having both immunity and the ability to censor viewpoints they disagree with is because you generally align with their views. If you disagreed with them, you'd likely think differently.
The political bias in these companies and their policies is very well documented.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sorry......but few people have any concerns about being banned from social media for the content they post.

As for the few.......they should examine their need to post such content and will be willing to accept the consequences if they do post it.

Don't complain your wings get burnt if you fly to close to a flame.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Sorry......but few people have any concerns about being banned from social media for the content they post.
> 
> As for the few.......they should examine their need to post such content and will be willing to accept the consequences if they do post it.
> 
> Don't complain your wings get burnt if you fly to close to a flame.


You're only saying this because you like the guys in power.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> You're only saying this because you like the guys in power.


This has nothing to do with who is in power. The laws have been consistent on the current matter.

People who carry out terrorist attacks against the country, especially to directly attack the government, need to face criminal consequences. It's just mind boggling to me how many Americans (and even some Canadians) can't comprehend this basic aspect of law & order.


someone who commits murders, must be caught and tried for murder, and face punishment
someone who steals money, must be caught and tried for theft, and face punishment

And similarly


someone (or groups) who violently attack the government, must be caught and tried for crimes against the state
someone who incites violence or organizes those groups (also a crime) must be caught and tried for crimes against the state

Currently, there is a clear group of MAGA supporters and militia members who appear to be guilty of crimes. They obviously have to face those consequences. These are countries of law and order right?

@Rusty O'Toole you understand these people broke the law - right? They committed some very serious offences. Actually, horrendous offences against the country.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Many disagree.
> They should only be granted immunity if it is in the public interest for them to have it.
> 
> I think you're only okay with them having both immunity and the ability to censor viewpoints they disagree with is because you generally align with their views. If you disagreed with them, you'd likely think differently.
> The political bias in these companies and their policies is very well documented.


You really don't want a completely unregulated wild west that we would see if they could not moderate their platforms. It may also require identities to be verified (and reduction in privacy) to address civil damages (defamation, etc.). If we removed the safe harbour, these platforms would just shut down commenting as the liability is unacceptable.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> You really don't want a completely unregulated wild west that we would see if they could not moderate their platforms. It may also require identities to be verified (and reduction in privacy) to address civil damages (defamation, etc.). If we removed the safe harbour, these platforms would just shut down commenting as the liability is unacceptable.


No I don't.
I'd just like the regulation or moderation to be fair and not politically motivated.

If they're going to play the "I can do what I want on my platform" game, then remove safe harbour.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> This has nothing to do with who is in power. The laws have been consistent on the current matter.
> 
> People who carry out terrorist attacks against the country, especially to directly attack the government, need to face criminal consequences. It's just mind boggling to me how many Americans (and even some Canadians) can't comprehend this basic aspect of law & order.
> 
> ...


Absolutely agree with all of that.

I was calling for the same thing all summer.

They also have to act against Antifa, Boogaloo, BLM affiliated agitators, and any other group that uses violence.
That's not to detract from anyone else who also committed crimes.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I was calling for the same thing all summer.


Let's just be clear though, the pro black rights activists were *not* trying to overthrow the elected government, not trying to interfere in the elections, and not committing violent attacks on sitting parliaments to stop the democratic process.

Those summer protesters also didn't try hunting down the Vice President (second highest office) to murder him, didn't plant bombs at political offices, were not organizing a government overthrow.

I know you like the equivalences to keep poking at _your own_ political 'enemies' but these are very different things. What is currently happening among the far right is a unique crime and threat, a violent insurrection / terrorism against the state.

Perhaps more importantly it's a direct assault on the INSTITUTION of the USA (and all western countries) by attempting to overthrow the democratic process. This is violence in direct reaction to a fair, constitutional democratic election. It is a very unique and horrendous crime against western countries.

Protesters for black lives did nothing of this sort, obviously. Only the far right extremists are doing this.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Let's just be clear though, the pro black rights activists were *not* trying to overthrow the elected government, not trying to interfere in the elections, and not committing violent attacks on sitting parliaments to prevent the operation of government.
> 
> What is currently happening among the far right is a unique crime and threat, the insurrection attempt and terrorism against the state.


Actually CHOP/CHAZ was an attempt to prevent the lawful authority of the elected government, and attacking a courthouse or police station is also an assault on democratic institutions.

I think that it is happening at the Federal level is a novel aspect, but it just the logical extrapolation of increasingly violent acts that have been taking place all summer.
Don't forget armed terrorists were attempting to attack the Michigan governor.

The problem is the increase in violence as opposed to peaceful debate.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I think that it is happening at the Federal level is a novel aspect, but it just the logical extrapolation of increasingly violent acts that have been taking place all summer.
> Don't forget armed terrorists were attempting to attack the Michigan governor.
> 
> The problem is the increase in violence as opposed to peaceful debate.


Glad you raised the Michigan governor. Yes, that attack was a sign of things to come. The terrorists attempted to take the governor as hostage, maybe to kill her.

Next step up, they attacked the Capitol and tried to overthrow a sitting government.

Remember that also during the summer, a right wing extremist carried out an armed assault on the Prime Minister's residence, likely an assassination attempt. These are all related.

I think Fox News and the radical/angry media outlets (Infowars, Gateway Pundit, Rebel News in Canada) deserve a lot of the blame for this. They have been fuelling anger, outrage and extreme interpretation of the world for many years now. The result is a new radical movement (some mix of MAGA and Qanon) which intends to use violence for their political and ideological purposes.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> The lesson to me is how easily people are manipulated and for all intents and purposes, driven mad or delusional.


I think you'd get lots of support for that statement, but possibly not in thinking about the same people you have in mind.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Glad you raised the Michigan governor. Yes, that attack was a sign of things to come. The terrorists attempted to take the governor as hostage, maybe to kill her.
> 
> Next step up, they attacked the Capitol and tried to overthrow a sitting government.
> 
> ...


Other outlets are also pushing their messages to inflame as well.

How do you explain the BLM riots, except outrage? Who was fueling it?

There has been a dramatic escalation across the board, and it's not good.

We need more people to denounce ALL VIOLENCE.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Let me guess. You also believed Obama was going to round people up and put them in FEMA camps. Maybe try hyperventilating a bit less.
> 
> Bernie Sanders never said anything about putting people in concentration camps. You claim supports of him said so. I've not seen it, and doubt it came from anyone credible.


This is from Youtube. I can no longer find the full Project Veritas video, it seems to have disappeared some time in the last 11 months, this extract will have to do. There are others of Sanders campaign staff making similar statements or worse.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> This is from Youtube. I can no longer find the full Project Veritas video, it seems to have disappeared some time in the last 11 months, this extract will have to do. There are others of Sanders campaign staff making similar statements or worse.


It's true, Germany did require a massive campaign to re-educate the population to stamp out fascist thinking and tendencies, to the extent it was possible. This is a reason Germany still has extremely strict laws today against Nazi propaganda, holocaust denial etc.

I don't know the context of that whole video (it's easy to take things out of context) but the radicalization of MAGA/Qanon people we see today is a very serious concern for society. Of course not all of them are crazy, but a decent number of them are truly detached from reality and are well into "extremist" territory.

Enough of them are extremists that they are actively organizing and carrying out terrorist attacks, for example. At this point some MAGA people are now also threatening and trying to kill Republicans, the very people who they previously loved. _They've gone crazy._

It is a legitimate concern for the US: how will that extremism be alleviated? They are going to struggle with this for a very long time.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

@Rusty O'Toole and @MrMatt , let me give you the example of an American man I know, someone who was a friend and colleague, who was radicalized by MAGA/Qanon. Why don't you tell me what society should do with this man.

We worked together for years, in fact he sat at the desk next to me. Nice guy, a smart guy. We went for drinks, talked about our dating experiences. Even back then he was a bit weird, very obsessed with 9/11 conspiracy theories and conspiracy web sites.

I didn't hear much from him over the last 3 years (the Trump years). I started sending him text messages near the election, and I was getting back very crazy responses. He was writing that democrats are child molesters and sent long, rambling text messages about democrat agents who would go around molesting children in China. Virtually every text message I got from him was about pedophilia. I stopped responding. Then he texted me that he's going to "do something to stop the evil forces" (something to that effect).

I debated whether I should report him to the police or FBI since that's the kind of thing lunatics say before carrying out attacks. But since he's my friend, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and didn't tell anyone. I hope that my inaction isn't going to result in people being harmed.

I did show the text to a friend of mine, who remarked, "he's lost his mind. This guy needs help."

This man will never be able to get a job ever again. When he shows up in a workplace and starts talking like that, everyone is going to see he's a nut, and step away from him. He will ONLY find company among other people with his extreme MAGA/Qanon views. He will consume all their media, hang out in their discussion groups. This is very similar to how people enter religious cults or extremist groups in general.

So what does society do about him, and millions of other men like him in America? Do we leave them alone, so they can indulge in their increasingly crazy fantasies? They are trying to murder people.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> It is a legitimate concern for the US: how will that extremism be alleviated? They are going to struggle with this for a very long time.


They have to start having honest conversations.
They also have to acknowledge that the problem is the perceived unfairness, which is fanned by all sides.
Too many legitimate concerns are simply swept away, so they people feel they're out of better options, it's really about the disenfranchisement.

Do you really think that people would storm government buildings, or riot in the streets if they felt that there were other options?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I did show the text to a friend of mine, who remarked, "he's lost his mind. This guy needs help."


Get him help?
This is where deradicalization comes in.

People do this, maybe listen to Daryl Davis?

The problem is that there are people who are trying to discuss this exact problem, and how to address it.
Then protestors shut them down, (NJ 2019) because they don't want "white supremacists" to have a platform.

That's the problem, people with power don't want to solve the problem.
They want to fight and blame and quite honestly they benefit from it.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> This thread and others like it have been very enlightening to me. If Trump fans amounted to only 1% of the population, and Americans owned no guns, Now I understand how things got out of hand in Nazi Germany, Kmer Rouge Cambodia, Communist Russia and China, and similar places. what is there to stop Pelosi and the Democrats from rounding them up, putting them in concentration camps and exterminating them?
> 5 years ago there was no such thing as a Trump fan. Today there are millions who would cheerfully exterminate them all because of politics and media hysteria, most of it based on fantasies, falsehoods and baseless accusations


In June when I saw Trump, Barr, Esper, and Milly - in battle fatigues, order that unarmed peaceful protesters standing properly behind the earlier placed gov't barricade's, get set upon in a planned gov't attack because the President wanted a photo op I too understand how things got out of control in those countries you cite. In fact I thought it had to be Russia or China I was watching! (Tiananmen Square came to mind) I agree, what is there to stop _Trump_ and the _Republicans_ from rounding them up, putting them in concentration camps and exterminating them? And you're concerned about some low level Democratic Staffer speaking stupidly. (I haven't seen the video just the title). 

All of the people who attended the Capital on Jan 6th did so for only one reason, they're totally sucked in by Trump's lies. Think of it, chanting hang Pence, because he, Trumps biggest supporter for 4 years, had the audacity to defy Trump and declare that he was going to obey the law and constitution, and Trump then publiclly stated I won't like him if he does (dog whistle). Trump previously said if I shoot someone on 5th Ave., they will still love me... Just think if they had gotten to Pence. Do really think Trump would care or even admonish them. No he would call them all great patriots for hanging the vice president of the United States of American. Then it would be Kim Jong Trump.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

I wish there were as much concern for Canadian politics as this is for the US. Our way of life is in a spiral.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Retiredguy said:


> All of the people who attended the Capital on Jan 6th did so for only one reason, they're totally sucked in by Trump's lies.


And the BLM rioters were sucked in by different lies all summer.

We have to start the dialog to overcome the lies.

It's the SAME PROBLEM affecting extremists all around, and it's the same solution. We even know the solution.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Mechanic said:


> I wish there were as much concern for Canadian politics as this is for the US. Our way of life is in a spiral.


Yes, I am quite concerned about growing radicalism among the Canadian far right. They have already attempted political assassination, but everyone is just kind of ignoring it.

We have extremist cells within the ranks of our military, and we've got growing extremism within the community. I suspect that they are far more active than in previous years. The American/MAGA propaganda continues to radicalize more and more Canadians.

The far-right in Canada is growing more active and the extremists among them threaten our way of life. I believe that Canadian police and intelligence are not taking it seriously enough, shown for example by how the RCMP recently let a neonazi (in Manitoba) easily slip through their fingers and flee the country.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Yes, I am quite concerned about growing radicalism among the Canadian far right. They have already attempted political assassination, but everyone is just kind of ignoring it.
> 
> We have extremist cells within the ranks of our military, and we've got growing extremism within the community. I suspect that they are far more active than in previous years. The American/MAGA propaganda continues to radicalize more and more Canadians.
> 
> The far-right in Canada is growing more active and the extremists among them threaten our way of life. I believe that Canadian police and intelligence are not taking it seriously enough, shown for example by how the RCMP recently let a neonazi (in Manitoba) easily slip through their fingers and flee the country.


I'm more scared of the far left, as they actually have political power in Canada and the US.
In the US they've also cause far more damage and deaths than the far right.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

james4beach said:


> Yes, I am quite concerned about growing radicalism among the Canadian far right. They have already attempted political assassination, but everyone is just kind of ignoring it.
> 
> We have extremist cells within the ranks of our military, and we've got growing extremism within the community. I suspect that they are far more active than in previous years. The American/MAGA propaganda continues to radicalize more and more Canadians.
> 
> The far-right in Canada is growing more active and the extremists among them threaten our way of life. I believe that Canadian police and intelligence are not taking it seriously enough, shown for example by how the RCMP recently let a neonazi (in Manitoba) easily slip through their fingers and flee the country.


On a radio interview long ago, Deborah Grey, the once lone MP from the Reform Party, described how the Left "abhors us" and "thinks we're all stupid". Those were her words (or as close as I can remember).

Is there anybody left still wondering why?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I'm more scared of the far left, as they actually have political power in Canada and the US.
> In the US they've also cause far more damage and deaths than the far right.


What a strange fear to have, considering that Trump was just in office for 4 years and practically destroyed the US government structure, and then tried to overthrow it while leaving.

You're lying. The far left has not caused more damage and deaths than the far right.

But hey don't let me stop you from your ongoing propaganda effort ... please tell us. What is the scary far left plotting next. Are they gonna take away my freedums?


----------



## kcowan2000 (Mar 24, 2020)

We need a Watercooler thread to move these sarcastic ping pong games out of the main discourse.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

kcowan2000 said:


> We need a Watercooler thread to move these sarcastic ping pong games out of the main discourse.


Let’s commit to stay away from Trump talk once he’s out of office. Could be the 20th...could be sooner.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> If they're going to play the "I can do what I want on my platform" game, then remove safe harbour.


This will as a consequence lead to severe restriction of user generated content (ie, 95%+ reduction in user generated content).

Internet forums might become non-viable if they were liable for any opinions/statements posted on them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> This will as a consequence lead to severe restriction of user generated content (ie, 95%+ reduction in user generated content).
> 
> Internet forums might become non-viable if they were liable for any opinions/statements posted on them.


I agree, that's why they call it "the nuclear option".

The alternative I think most people want is simply fair (politially unbiased) treatment.
There are many examples, I've raised several.
It's also an accepted fact by most.








Social media: Is it really biased against US Republicans?


Many conservative Americans believe Facebook and Twitter are biased against them, despite denials.



www.bbc.com





I think the bigger and more inclusive a platform claims to be, the more open their requirements are.

I think that outside of overt criminal activity, one should have internet access.
In think this should include access to major communication platforms and technologies that benefit from legislated liability shields.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I think that outside of overt criminal activity, one should have internet access.
> In think this should include access to major communication platforms and technologies that benefit from legislated liability shields.


This would not just protect conservatives, but also things that almost everyone find highly objectionable (holocaust denial, hate speech etc.).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> This would not just protect conservatives, but also things that almost everyone find highly objectionable (holocaust denial, hate speech etc.).


It would also protect lefties when the right takes power.
In the past it was the lefties who were the defenders of free speech, now it's the right.
The principle is the same.


To the rest, yes, but we don't agree what is and is not hate speech.

Finally "highly objectionable" changes over time and by location.
Remember in some places advocating for consensual homosexual acts is a serious crime.

I don't think the following are "hate speech", some will disagree.
It's okay to be gay.
It's okay to be white.

I'm for restricting sufficiently harmful speech. I am not for banning entire classes of speech that may simply cause some emotional distress.
The cost of restricted speech is simply too high.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It is hyperbolic to suggest that conservatives are banned from social media. 

If you want to restrict platforms from moderating content, I think you need verified identifies for anyone contributing to social media so that they can be obtain for civil action. I'm not sure it's worth that cost. I'd rather just let there be 8chan equivalent platforms for more out-there opinions.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> It is hyperbolic to suggest that conservatives are banned from social media.
> 
> If you want to restrict platforms from moderating content, I think you need verified identifies for anyone contributing to social media so that they can be obtain for civil action. I'm not sure it's worth that cost. I'd rather just let there be 8chan equivalent platforms for more out-there opinions.


The claim is a pattern of politically biased bans and moderation.
If they were refusing service based on religion it would be clearly illegal.

All I want is for the monopoly/oligopy companies to either stop political discrimination, or not benefit from the liability shield provisions.

If these forums don't benefit the public, why should we subsidize them?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> The claim is a pattern of politically biased bans and moderation.
> If they were refusing service based on religion it would be clearly illegal.


I really don't understand how you can claim anti-right bias when Facebook is tremendously popular among the far right. Facebook has probably been one of the greatest gifts to the far right, to help spread their propaganda.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People are being censored for inciting violence. We will be just fine without those people on social media.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> People are being censored for inciting violence. We will be just fine without those people on social media.


What violence did Lindsay Shepard commit?
She simply stated that a specific person didn't have a uterus.. lifetime ban from Twitter.

I think factual statements should be permitted in all but the most extreme cases.

That's actually the heart of the issue, if you can get banned, for making a true factual statement, that is not illegal, there is a problem.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It may be a factual statement or it may not, but the only purpose for making such a statement in a public forum is to mock and bully the targeted person.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> It may be a factual statement or it may not, but the only purpose for making such a statement in a public forum is to mock and bully the targeted person.


So it isn't banning for violence. Glad you accept that.
A healthy majority believe there is political censorship online.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Twitter is a private company. They ban violations of their terms of conditions. They don't need any reason at all to ban people.

Don't like it............go somewhere else.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Twitter is a private company. They ban violations of their terms of conditions. They don't need any reason at all to ban people.
> 
> Don't like it............go somewhere else.


Conservatives usually whine endlessly about how the government should stay out of a corporation's business, and the FREEDOM of the individual (or corporation) to make its own decisions.

Twitter gets to make its own decisions. Facebook gets to make its own decisions.

The owners of this forum get to make their own decisions.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Conservatives usually whine endlessly about how the government should stay out of a corporation's business, and the FREEDOM of the individual (or corporation) to make its own decisions.
> 
> Twitter gets to make its own decisions. Facebook gets to make its own decisions.
> 
> The owners of this forum get to make their own decisions.


Then they should be held responsible and face the consequences.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Twitter is a private company. They ban violations of their terms of conditions. They don't need any reason at all to ban people.
> 
> Don't like it............go somewhere else.


And you wonder why people aren't having productive discussions.
Ok, I get it, no amount of data, or logic is going to convince sags & james that discussing issues is better than the alternative.
Not only that, you think it's better to try and use force and authority to shut down dissent, do you know where that leads?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

You know, this is an important debate, and I actually think Jack is trying.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1349510769268850690
I think he offers a very reasonable take on this, and he is honestly trying his best.

Unfortunately I think the problem is too big for him to solve, but at least he's trying.


----------



## Tayls77 (Dec 10, 2019)

james4beach said:


> Conservatives usually whine endlessly about how the government should stay out of a corporation's business, and the FREEDOM of the individual (or corporation) to make its own decisions.
> 
> Twitter gets to make its own decisions. Facebook gets to make its own decisions.
> 
> The owners of this forum get to make their own decisions.


So I usually stay out of these as frankly I use this as a investing site, but I assume from your comments then that you are fine with a company that decides not to serve a gay couple who wants a wedding cake (as happened somewhere last year), or a barber that won't cut someones hair because they don't like their tattoos, or a landlord that decides he won't rent to a specific nationality of people? Just like to know the rules everyone wants to play by as too many of us there seems to be two sets.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Tayls77 said:


> So I usually stay out of these as frankly I use this as a investing site, but I assume from your comments then that you are fine with a company that decides not to serve a gay couple who wants a wedding cake (as happened somewhere last year), or a barber that won't cut someones hair because they don't like their tattoos, or a landlord that decides he won't rent to a specific nationality of people? Just like to know the rules everyone wants to play by as too many of us there seems to be two sets.


Of all your examples I think the rental one is the best.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Tayls77 said:


> So I usually stay out of these as frankly I use this as a investing site, but I assume from your comments then that you are fine with a company that decides not to serve a gay couple who wants a wedding cake (as happened somewhere last year), or a barber that won't cut someones hair because they don't like their tattoos, or a landlord that decides he won't rent to a specific nationality of people? Just like to know the rules everyone wants to play by as too many of us there seems to be two sets.


I think there's a slight difference between not providing a service to people because of prejudice, vs. not providing a service to people who use that service to organize and promote violence. Otherwise, why don't we let terrorists use our banking system to transfer funds to other terrorists?


----------



## Tayls77 (Dec 10, 2019)

bgc_fan said:


> I think there's a slight difference between not providing a service to people because of prejudice, vs. not providing a service to people who use that service to organize and promote violence. Otherwise, why don't we let terrorists use our banking system to transfer funds to other terrorists?



Ah thank you for proving my point, Liberals have one rule for themselves another for anyone who disagrees with them. All of the above are cases of prejudice and in Trumps case its prejudice against conservatives. Think back to the Wisconsin Act 10 protest when approx 10k leftwing protesters took over the Wisconsin state legislator and threatened Gov Walker and were applauded by the democrats (oh ya but that was different). How about AOC's, Pelosi's and Harris's tweets during the BLM and Anifa protests (I just don't know why they aren't uprisings all over the country, Protesters should not let up, their needs to be unrest in the streets) (there are more) Oh ya but that was different
Or how about Pelosi's tweet after the 2017 election loss when she tweeted "Our election was highjacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to protect our democracy". or these lovely leftest stars, Madonna - Let's blow up the white house, Peter Fonda - Lock a 10 year old in a cage with child molesters (referring to Barron Trump) and who can forget Kathy Griffith and here decapitated head fiasco. I can send you a few hundred more if you like, and guess what they all still have access to their social media feeds. 
Maybe you would see my point if we use something closer to home, like the attack adds on Harper by the liberals painting Harper as a racist I remember Ignatieff saying something like "did Harper Train his dog to attack racial minorities on command?" (which of course proved false) But when the actual racist Trudeau was caught having done black face (multiple times) well we had to cut him some slack because it was just a mistake.

So back to the point, if a private business gets to decided who it serves (which I am okay with) don't cry when the same rule is applied to you. Until the left is ready to apply the same standards to themselves, well they're just hypocrites. 
(Sorry I allowed myself to be dragged into this stupidity, but sometimes a body can only take so much) I REALLY wish this was one site where we could just discuss things of a financial matter.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Tayls77 said:


> Ah thank you for proving my point, Liberals have one rule for themselves another for anyone who disagrees with them


Well, you seem to exemplify the right where you don't seem to see nuance. And see false equivalencies. 

For example, the Wisconsin 10 protest? Why Wisconsin's Act 10 Protests And U.S. Capitol Insurrection Shouldn't Be Compared
No mention of violence or people bringing weapons. But yeah, exactly the same circumstances. 

Then you bring up Pelosi in 2016. Ok, when did she tell Democrats to march to the Capitol and take by force what they deserve like Trump did?

The problem is that right wing supporters like to point "Look the left does it", but ignore the fact the circumstances are not the same.

Kathy Griffin? She was cancelled right after that and hasn't been working since, but yeah, ignore that part of the story.

You seem to ignore the fact that up until the events on Capitol, these people had free reign over social media and there were no issues with them posting possible threats like storming the Capitol and hang Pence. Most people would take that as bravado and not really consider it seriously, but the minute some actually took the action, it became serious.


----------



## Tayls77 (Dec 10, 2019)

bgc_fan said:


> Well, you seem to exemplify the right where you don't seem to see nuance. And see false equivalencies.
> 
> For example, the Wisconsin 10 protest? Why Wisconsin's Act 10 Protests And U.S. Capitol Insurrection Shouldn't Be Compared
> No mention of violence or people bringing weapons. But yeah, exactly the same circumstances. 95% of the capital protesters did not invoke violence and show me where Trump told them to attack? An Antifa member was arrested as one of the perpetrators today., so was he also driven to action by Trump?
> ...


 _You ignore the fact the left's call to action killed over 20 people this summer and all of them still have their social media.

One rule for all and the sandbox gets a lot friendlier like it use to be when we could have real conversations and the real difference between left and right was how politicians wanted to grow the economy, create a better place for citizens. Today politics has made enemies of many people who would otherwise get along. The majority of us are in the middle but the media bias to the left has created an entirely new media with a right bias and the division grows. If everyone was treated the same, no special treatment, things would likely improve but these latest moves by the social media giants makes the likelihood of that remote. 

I wish you well._


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Tayls77 said:


> _You ignore the fact the left's call to action killed over 20 people this summer and all of them still have their social media.
> 
> One rule for all and the sandbox gets a lot friendlier like it use to be when we could have real conversations and the real difference between left and right was how politicians wanted to grow the economy, create a better place for citizens. Today politics has made enemies of many people who would otherwise get along. The majority of us are in the middle but the media bias to the left has created an entirely new media with a right bias and the division grows. If everyone was treated the same, no special treatment, things would likely improve but these latest moves by the social media giants makes the likelihood of that remote.
> 
> I wish you well._


Considering you pop in, saying that you don't want to discuss, but state your opinions and now you want to fly off, I'd say that says something.

But please, why don't you identify and post what "they" posted asking for people to storm the Capitol and government buildings and to cause riots vs them organizing protests? Should be simple to support your assertions right because you wouldn't make stuff up or just depend on 2nd/3rd hand knowledge right? You'd actually see the source before basing your opinions. And none of this telling me to look for it, you want a constructive discussion, you provide your proof, it's not up to me to find it for you.


----------



## Tayls77 (Dec 10, 2019)

bgc_fan said:


> Considering you pop in, saying that you don't want to discuss, but state your opinions and now you want to fly off, I'd say that says something.
> 
> But please, why don't you identify and post what "they" posted asking for people to storm the Capitol and government buildings and to cause riots vs them organizing protests? Should be simple to support your assertions right because you wouldn't make stuff up or just depend on 2nd/3rd hand knowledge right? You'd actually see the source before basing your opinions. And none of this telling me to look for it, you want a constructive discussion, you provide your proof, it's not up to me to find it for you.


i gave you more regarding what the left has said then you have provided regarding what Trump said to get him banned, just as I gave you more regarding the hypocrisy here with Trudeau. 
The ban on Trump is based simply on the left's hatred for him, nothing more nothing less, this argument started with the comment regarding a private business doing what they want. I agree just remember its a two way street, so no more - "Ya but in our case it's different". 
Maybe all those farmers in the USA that grow food will decide they don't want to sell to democratic cities, those small trucking firms will decided they don"t want to ship to Democratic cities. Slippery slopes we are living on these days.

Now back to investing.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Tayls77 said:


> Now back to investing.


Yes since you don't like to provide proof. Just vague nonsense.

But here's an excerpt from Trump's transcript:

Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life, but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” *And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.*
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavours have not yet begun. My fellow Americans for our movement, for our children and for our beloved country and I say this, despite all that’s happened, the best is yet to come.
*So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. *But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to* try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.*

Oh, and example of what would have banned him before? He tweeted: 
“These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”

Another user just copy and pasted that statement and got his account suspended for glorifying violence, yet nothing had happened to Trump's account because he was President.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Well, you seem to exemplify the right where you don't seem to see nuance. And see false equivalencies.
> 
> For example, the Wisconsin 10 protest? Why Wisconsin's Act 10 Protests And U.S. Capitol Insurrection Shouldn't Be Compared
> No mention of violence or people bringing weapons. But yeah, exactly the same circumstances.
> ...


Well I'll jump in here.
It was wrong to illegally enter and occupy the Wisconsin State government building.
It was wrong to illegally enter and occupy the US Capital buildings.

In both cases it was a massive security failure.

I support everyones right to peaceful protest and free speech.
I do not support illegal or violent protests.


as far as violence or weapons, there are some reports of threats of violence in both incidents if you review multiple news sources.
As well either security didn't do their job, or there was obviously violence, or the threat of violence to bypass the security.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

The scary thing is we dont know who to trust. There are members of the military that are turncoats.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

kcowan said:


> The scary thing is we dont know who to trust. There are members of the military that are turncoats.


I wouldn't necessarily call them turncoats. But it does seem from personal observations that many who have been in military or even police forces, tend to be more to the right, rather than left. Perhaps due to their training or experiences. There is nothing wrong with that really. Not surprising they would tend to be on conservative side in politics given the situations they may have had to face.

One ex-military Democratic congressman mentioned this today on CNN. He felt that extremist right wing groups looked for recruits among those retiring from military and may even encourage joining the military to get the training they seek. He was very concerned about the growth of these groups in USA over the past 10 or so years.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

agent99 said:


> I wouldn't necessarily call them turncoats. But it does seem from personal observations that many who have been in military or even police forces, tend to be more to the right, rather than left. Perhaps due to their training or experiences. There is nothing wrong with that really. Not surprising they would tend to be on conservative side in politics given the situations they may have had to face.
> 
> One ex-military Democratic congressman mentioned this today on CNN. He felt that extremist right wing groups looked for recruits among those retiring from military and may even encourage joining the military to get the training they seek. He was very concerned about the growth of these groups in USA over the past 10 or so years.


Conservatives believe in protecting the foundations and structure of society.
That is the job of the military and police protect society.

Also consider the modern left wants to dramatically overhaul and change the structure of society, it's no wonder there is representation bias.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

Closing thread, political bickering and impasse


----------

