# All house republicans except 8, vote against codifying access to birth control



## Nothereed (Jul 22, 2022)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ntrol-republicans-join-democrats/10117979002/

Can I even be surprised? 
"The eight Republicans who voted in favor of codifying contraceptive access are Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, John Katko of New York, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Maria Salazar of Florida and Fred Upton of Michigan. 

The House's final tally of 228-195 was largely along party lines."


----------



## CPG_ (Jul 22, 2022)

"can i even be surprised?"
no, no you can't.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 22, 2022)

CPG_ said:


> no, no you can't.


I wish it was surprising. But it's not. From the same party that removed access abortion, they now want to remove conceptives. Takes "pro life" into a entirely (not really) new meaning. They're pro birth. Just nothing relating to the safety or finacies of that. Or helping that life out...


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 22, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Can I even be surprised?




Can you even say where in the Constitution the Congress is granted the power to enact such a law??

Seriously, Article I Section 8. What enables Congress to pass a Federal law guaranteeing the people of the United States a right to contraception ... or that they have to right of "access" to any particular thing at all? I'm sure the DNC has lawyers ready to make interstate commerce arguments in Court, but it's a stretch. An absurd twisting of the intent that Congress should regulate commerce between States and with other nations, but it won't be the first time such strained arguments have been made.

If Congress has no Constitutional authority to pass such a law, should members of Congress be voting for it?

The right to contraception along with a lot of other "rights" that the Supreme Court has been declaring out of thin air for the last 60 years or so, using a theory of "substantive due process" ... is just a made up bit of legal hocus pocus to give the Supreme Court and the Federal govt. powers which the Constitution does not establish. "Substantive due process" is an invention of the 20th century, and nothing established under this umbrella is actually *in* the Constitution. Unenumerated. Inferred. Wish-list. The Supreme Court says it's a right, and just like that we have to pretend the Constitution intended it.

It's not that people shouldn't have the right to contraception, or gay marriage, or abortion, or whatever else ... the issue is that if you want a new, explicitly enumerated right for the people, it's supposed to require an amendment. Otherwise, it's a state-level issue.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 22, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Can you even say where in the Constitution the Congress is granted the power to enact such a law??
> 
> Seriously, Article I Section 8. What enables Congress to pass a Federal law guaranteeing the people of the United States a right to contraception ... or that they have to right of "access" to any particular thing at all? I'm sure the DNC has lawyers ready to make interstate commerce arguments in Court, but it's a stretch. An absurd twisting of the intent that Congress should regulate commerce between States and with other nations, but it won't be the first time such strained arguments have been made.
> 
> ...


There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that precludes codifying contraceptive access into federal law, lol.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that precludes codifying contraceptive access into federal law, lol.



Where in Article I, Section 8 does the Constitution give the legislative branch such power? The Constitution is not a document that allows the Federal government the power to do anything the Constitution doesn't "preclude." It's just the opposite. The 10th Amendment states very clearly that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States, or the people. If the Constitution doesn't say Congress _can_ do it, then Congress doesn't have that power.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 22, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Where in Article I, Section 8 does the Constitution give the legislative branch such power? The Constitution is not a document that allows the Federal government the power to do anything the Constitution doesn't "preclude." It's just the opposite. The 10th Amendment states very clearly that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States, or the people. If the Constitution doesn't say Congress _can_ do it, then Congress doesn't have that power.


The Commerce Clause says hi.


----------



## SonowRaevius (Jul 22, 2022)

Not really surprising for the party that seems to want to drag the rest of the country back to the early 1900's,  voted against same sex and interracial marriage yesterday, who put up bounty websites for their own citizens, are trying to track women by their period info, and are also trying to make it so pregnant women can't cross state lines,  thus taking away their Right to Travel and Freedom of Movement.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The Commerce Clause says hi.



I already addressed that above. I think that argument fails, as it likely would if a codification of Roe were tested*. But it's all moot since this is all just pre-midterms theatrics just like the 'assault weapon' ban the House is whipping up.  "They voted against it!!" is all the Democrats want out of this. 


*I'm not the only one who thinks it's shaky at best. These are re: Roe, but address using the commerce clause to justify a Federal Law that would effectively guarantee a 'right' to something:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...ve-the-constitutional-authority-to-codify-roe
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/opinions/codifying-roe-scotus-abortion-nourse/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/04/roe-overturned-congress-abortion-law/


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 22, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Can you even say where in the Constitution the Congress is granted the power to enact such a law??
> 
> Seriously, Article I Section 8. What enables Congress to pass a Federal law guaranteeing the people of the United States a right to contraception ... or that they have to right of "access" to any particular thing at all? I'm sure the DNC has lawyers ready to make interstate commerce arguments in Court, but it's a stretch. An absurd twisting of the intent that Congress should regulate commerce between States and with other nations, but it won't be the first time such strained arguments have been made.
> 
> ...


Sounds to me like your saying we need an amendment for every right we wish to have. I'm pretty sure that's not how that's supposed to work. We're supposed to have presumed liberty until a law is made to limit it some way for the good of the people. The freedom is the default, not the other way around.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 22, 2022)

SonowRaevius said:


> Not really surprising for the party that seems to want to drag the rest of the country back to the early 1900's,  voted against same sex and interracial marriage yesterday, who put up bounty websites for their own citizens, are trying to track women by their period info, and are also trying to make it so pregnant women can't cross state lines,  thus taking away their Right to Travel and Freedom of Movement.


Did you ever think that people vote against bills because they think the federal government has no business doing those things? Why would anybody support having to go ask the government permission and give them money for a license just to get married?

You must have been really mad when California banned unvaccinated people from traveling there.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 22, 2022)

WeedZ said:


> Sounds to me like your saying we need an amendment for every right we wish to have. I'm pretty sure that's not how that's supposed to work. We're supposed to have presumed liberty until a law is made to limit it some way for the good of the people. The freedom is the default, not the other way around.



Sure. It's legal until it's not. But for the Federal government to step in and prevent States from making something illegal (or to ban something nationally) there has to be Constitutional authority behind that. Either an amendment is passed (ban slavery, give women the vote, ban the sale of alcohol), or during the latter half of the 20th century the commerce clause was often used as a way via the Courts to justify Federal laws over the States. Civil rights, controlled substances act, lots of regulatory agency action. But since the 90's, the Supreme Court has been shrinking the scope of the Commerce Clause back to where it was before WWII ... i.e. just about actual buying and selling of goods. The Commerce Clause was denied, for example, as a justification for Obamacare (but it was ok'd as being under Congress' power to tax).


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 22, 2022)

Alternate headline: Hive Mind Stays a Hive Mind


----------



## SonowRaevius (Jul 22, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Did you ever think that people vote against bills because they think the federal government has no business doing those things? Why would anybody support having to go ask the government permission and give them money for a license just to get married?
> 
> You must have been really mad when California banned unvaccinated people from traveling there.


Since you are being extremely naive and gullible allow me to sell you a bridge as well. 

The people that are voting against these thing are overly-religious and hate filled individuals that are only voting this way because it lines up with their own personal feelings and religious dogma and nothing more. 

As for the government stepping in, maybe they didn't teach you this in school, or homeschool in your case, but before the government stepped in people literally didn't even have the freedom to marry those they loved. In fact many people were threatened, beaten, lynched, subjected to electro shock treatment, or even outright killed just for existing or "loving the wrong person" and this includes children as well. 

Also, this would be a good point, if you know, the situations were actually similar in more ways than one. For instance, and I just want to make sure, did you know that viruses are contagious and pregnancies aren't? I am just making sure because some of you folks don't seem to know the difference.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 22, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Did you ever think that people vote against bills because they think the federal government has no business doing those things? Why would anybody support having to go ask the government permission and give them money for a license just to get married?
> 
> You must have been really mad when California banned unvaccinated people from traveling there.


Because there are states who wouldn't recognize that right. "State's rights" can trump national rights once they start universally enforcing and observing human rights. Until then? Tough shit. Don't like it, leave.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 22, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Sure. It's legal until it's not. But for the Federal government to step in and prevent States from making something illegal (or to ban something nationally) there has to be Constitutional authority behind that. Either an amendment is passed (ban slavery, give women the vote, ban the sale of alcohol), or during the latter half of the 20th century the commerce clause was often used as a way via the Courts to justify Federal laws over the States. Civil rights, controlled substances act, lots of regulatory agency action. But since the 90's, the Supreme Court has been shrinking the scope of the Commerce Clause back to where it was before WWII ... i.e. just about actual buying and selling of goods. The Commerce Clause was denied, for example, as a justification for Obamacare (but it was ok'd as being under Congress' power to tax).


I see what you're saying. Until the Federal government makes an amendment to prevent a state from making something illegal, they have no constitutional authority to do it. But there's something about the "you don't have the right to infringe on my right to infringe on other peoples rights" argument that doesn't sit well with me.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jul 22, 2022)

Cool Cool...lets take away the old fucks Viagra then and see how they like it. Because if you can't get your dick up, it's not god's will for you.  I can't believe we are seriously discussing about banning condoms and other contraceptives that we've honestly taken for granted for decades.  The balkanization of the US is imminent.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 22, 2022)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> Cool Cool...lets take away the old fucks Viagra then and see how they like it. Because if you can't get your dick up, it's not god's will for you.  I can't believe we are seriously discussing about banning condoms and other contraceptives that we've honestly taken for granted for decades.  The balkanization of the US is imminent.



Well, you'd have to get a State legislature to vote for that. Which is unlikely, since they're predominantly made up of old fucks lol.

And we're not seriously discussing about condoms and other contraceptives. As I mentioned above, this is a grandstanding exercise in an election year.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2022)

I’m a free market guy, these kinds of matters are filed in the “simples” drawer. I’m for complete legalisation of drugs because deciding what people can or can’t ingest isn’t within the federal government’s purview - by definition this includes contraceptive pills. I don’t even know how they would begin to codify physical barriers like condoms since they’re nothing more than a glorified latex/polyurethane balloon. Is “access” to such things a right? No. Should they be available on the market? Yes, absolutely - the market should be free. If there’s a demand for contraceptives, the market must provide them - that’s none of the government’s business.

There are two cited reasons for the decision to oppose the legislation - religious freedom and states’ rights to govern their own healthcare policy. I wholeheartedly disagree with the former, I can stand behind the latter. Religious freedom precludes *you* from doing things, not other people - nobody is forcing anybody to use contraception if they don’t want to. If using it goes against someone’s religious beliefs, they can choose to abstain. Freedom of religion necessarily entails freedom *from* religion, and I’m saying that as a catholic - I don’t care what other people do in their bedrooms, that’s their business. The latter is more agreeable - the people elect their own local government and if they support certain kinds of policies, they elect representatives that push them within the state. That obviously doesn’t make everyone happy, but those who disagree with such decisions can opt to vote accordingly in the next election *or* they can take advantage of their right to freedom of movement and move to a state that more closely aligns with their value system.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the GOP is cutting off its own nose to spite its face, it’s a bizarre visceral reaction to the Roe v. Wade repeal. They’re throwing everything they can at the wall hoping that the things they actually care about stick. Perhaps it’s some kind of harebrained scheme to divert attention from more relevant legislation that they might be sliding under the table. Either way, legislating morality goes against my core beliefs, so I have to tut tut them in this instance. This is a very dangerous game in the run up to an important election - they’re rocking the boat so hard that they’re starting to alienate independents, and that’s not a winning strategy.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m a free market guy, these kinds of matters are filed in the “simples” drawer. I’m for complete legalisation of drugs because deciding what people can or can’t ingest isn’t within the federal government’s purview - by definition this includes contraceptive pills. I don’t even know how they would begin to codify physical barriers like condoms since they’re nothing more than a glorified latex/polyurethane balloon. Is “access” to such things a right? No. Should they be available on the market? Yes, absolutely - the market should be free. If there’s a demand for contraceptives, the market must provide them - that’s none of the government’s business.
> 
> There are two cited reasons for the decision to oppose the legislation - religious freedom and states’ rights to govern their own healthcare policy. I wholeheartedly disagree with the former, I can stand behind the latter. Religious freedom precludes *you* from doing things, not other people - nobody is forcing anybody to use contraception if they don’t want to. If using it goes against someone’s religious beliefs, they can choose to abstain. Freedom of religion necessarily entails freedom *from* religion, and I’m saying that as a catholic - I don’t care what other people do in their bedrooms, that’s their business. The latter is more agreeable - the people elect their own local government and if they support certain kinds of policies, they elect representatives that push them within the state. That obviously doesn’t make everyone happy, but those who disagree with such decisions can opt to vote accordingly in the next election *or* they can take advantage of their right to freedom of movement and move to a state that more closely aligns with their value system.
> 
> It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the GOP is cutting off its own nose to spite its face, it’s a bizarre visceral reaction to the Roe v. Wade repeal. They’re throwing everything they can at the wall hoping that the things they actually care about stick. Perhaps it’s some kind of harebrained scheme to divert attention from more relevant legislation that they might be sliding under the table. Either way, legislating morality goes against my core beliefs, so I have to tut tut them in this instance. This is a very dangerous game in the run up to an important election - they’re rocking the boat so hard that they’re starting to alienate independents, and that’s not a winning strategy.




I liked the first part of your post, but as for the last part ... you do understand this is the Democrats' bill to impose a "right" to access to contraceptives, right? The Republicans didn't make this vote happen. The Democrats did, regardless of whether the Congress has the authority to make such a law, and regardless of its likelihood of actually passing the Senate, because they wanted to have the "They voted against it!" moment. (to make discussions like this happen on the internet) Same with the assault weapons ban they're working on.

It's just politics. Republicans would do it too on some issue or other, if they had the numbers in the House.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> I liked the first part of your post, but as for the last part ... you do understand this is the Democrats' bill to impose a "right" to access to contraceptives, right? The Republicans didn't make this vote happen. The Democrats did, regardless of whether the Congress has the authority to make such a law, and regardless of its likelihood of actually passing the Senate, because they wanted to have the "They voted against it!" moment. (to make discussions like this happen on the internet) Same with the assault weapons ban they're working on.
> 
> It's just politics. Republicans would do it too on some issue or other, if they had the numbers in the House.


Of course I understand. Here’s the problem with this line of thinking. The Democrat playbook is very simple - set up a snare, put a fancy and marketable name tag on it and invite the Republicans to step directly into it. This isn’t new - it’s just the nth permutation of “Let’s Do a Good Thing Act” that sounds great in the synopsis and includes pork barrel spending and other poison written in the appendix using a 2pt font. Republicans don’t know how to deal with that kind of thing, still. Their first impulse is moral outrage and throwing their hands up in the air. When they refuse to back legislation like this, they need to have a damn good reason for doing so, and they need to convey it to the public in a marketable way. In my estimation they haven’t done that. There needs to be at least one pleasant-looking face that can take the floor and object in a sensible way, someone who can voice their opinion and say “we shouldn’t be legislating this at all, we believe that our constituents can decide on their own because we treat them as grown adults. We’re not going to make these decisions on their behalf, they belong to the people”. In the absence of that they’re allowing their opposition they create the appearance of opposing something agreeable (at least on the face of it) because an old religious book told them to. That doesn’t speak to me - Republicans are responsible before the people, the public will judge them first, God will have to wait his turn. You and I both know it’s an optics game, but it’s an optics game the Republicans are *losing*.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course I understand. Here’s the problem with this line of thinking. The Democrat playbook is very simple - set up a snare, put a fancy and marketable name tag on it and invite the Republicans to step directly into it. This isn’t new - it’s just the nth permutation of “Let’s Do a Good Thing Act” that sounds great in the synopsis and includes pork barrel spending and other poison written in the appendix using a 2pt font. Republicans don’t know how to deal with that kind of thing, still. Their first impulse is moral outrage and throwing their hands up in the air. *When they refuse to back legislation like this, they need to have a damn good reason for doing so, and they need to convey it to the public in a marketable way. *In my estimation they haven’t done that. There needs to be at least one pleasant-looking face that can take the floor and object in a sensible way, someone who can voice their opinion and say “we shouldn’t be legislating this at all, we believe that our constituents can decide on their own because we treat them as grown adults. We’re not going to make these decisions on their behalf, they belong to the people”. In the absence of that they’re allowing their opposition they create the appearance of opposing something agreeable (at least on the face of it) because an old religious book told them to. That doesn’t speak to me - Republicans are responsible before the people, the public will judge them first, God will have to wait his turn. You and I both know it’s an optics game, but it’s an optics game the Republicans are *losing*.



You're 100% correct. But if CNNNBCCBSABCNYTWaPo&etc don't report on the Republicans' argument against it, you're stuck with watching C-SPAN 24/7 to hear it. Maybe their reason for opposition was put forward on the floor, but if it isn't covered in the news articles, what difference at this point does it make?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> You're 100% correct. But if CNNNBCCBSABCNYTWaPo&etc don't report on the Republicans' argument against it, you're stuck with watching C-SPAN 24/7 to hear it. Maybe their reason for opposition was put forward on the floor, but if it isn't covered in the news articles, what difference at this point does it make?


Old Media are dead. The news cycle lives on Twitter, first and foremost. The Republicans need good spokesmen, and they’re desperate for them. This isn’t a problem you can throw a Charlie Kirk at, they need normal-looking people that can convey the platform in simple terms that resonate with the constituents, and it looks to me like they’re searching in all the wrong places.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 22, 2022)

WeedZ said:


> Sounds to me like your saying we need an amendment for every right we wish to have. I'm pretty sure that's not how that's supposed to work. We're supposed to have presumed liberty until a law is made to limit it some way for the good of the people. The freedom is the default, not the other way around.


Presumed liberty is not the same as a right, though. The 10th amendment says that any power not granted to the federal government through the US Constitution belongs to the states or the people. In other words, as long as the US Constitution doesn't forbid it or explicitly say that the federal government is in charge of it, then it falls to state governments. If state constitutions don't address it, then it's in the category of "you do you" for the people in that state. This is liberty, but it's not a right, because states could choose to restrict it at any time, depending upon how their constitutions are written, and local governments could also potentally choose to restrict it.

If you want to codify something as a right, and you want that right to override the authority of all state governments to disagree, then you must amend the US Constitution. You don't pretend that the US Congress can create new rights through regular legislation, because the US Constitution doesn't say that Congress has the power to do that, and you certainly don't rely on the SCOTUS to bring out a crystal ball to pretend that the US Constitution says things that it doesn't say through divination.


----------



## Viri (Jul 22, 2022)

I have no idea what this is even about. I don't think birth control should become illegal, as that would just be plain dumb. I do believe it should remain prescription only, just for the sake of the female's well being, as birth control pills have pretty bad side effects, and the female's doctor should help the female pick out the right one that won't kill her.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Presumed liberty is not the same as a right, though. The 10th amendment says that any power not granted to the federal government through the US Constitution belongs to the states or the people. In other words, as long as the US Constitution doesn't forbid it or explicitly say that the federal government is in charge of it, then it falls to state governments. If state constitutions don't address it, then it's in the category of "you do you" for the people in that state. This is liberty, but it's not a right, because states could choose to restrict it at any time, depending upon how their constitutions are written, and local governments could also potentally choose to restrict it.
> 
> If you want to codify something as a right, and you want that right to override the authority of all state governments to disagree, then you must amend the US Constitution. You don't pretend that the US Congress can create new rights through regular legislation, because the US Constitution doesn't say that Congress has the power to do that, and you certainly don't rely on the SCOTUS to bring out a crystal ball to pretend that the US Constitution says things that it doesn't say through divination.


The matter of medical choice sits on the intersection of the 10th and the 14th amendments. “The powers not delegated (…) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (…) are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, however simultaneously “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Based on those two statements we can have an argument on what constitutes liberty as far as reproduction is concerned - I’m sure it’ll be fun, and very unproductive. In an ideal scenario we would see a dedicated amendment establishing medical choice as an enumerated right, but that’s a tightrope neither party wants walk or be held responsible for because it entails truckloads of unintended consequences. You have to take the sweet with the bitter, and there’s plenty of bitter for each party to object to when liberty is concerned.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Old Media are dead. The news cycle lives on Twitter, first and foremost.


I don't think this is really true. A small percentage of the population uses Twitter, and a small percentage of those people uses Twitter extensively. A big problem for the Democrats is their constant ability to mistake Twitter's opinion on things for the American people's opinion on things. It's why they spend such a huge amount of time on identity politics, instead of the things that might actually get them elected. They've mistaken the funhouse mirror that is Twitter for reality, and they can't understand why people in the real world don't want to vote for them, when their platform seems like it should be a winner based on what matters on Twitter.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 22, 2022)

I still remember all the pro-birthers saying, in the Roe V Wade thread, "There is NO NEED for abortion, contraception is enough and people should learn responsible sex". I called them on their lies, and they said what I wanted was just to "murder babies" - FACT: foetuses are not babies and never are. I also said that contraception was going to be on the block soon, and that was ridiculed as paranoia.

Another FACT: look at the vote. Anyone with a functioning brain, or enough intellectual honesty to fill a teacup, could have seen this was about to happen.


----------



## Jayro (Jul 22, 2022)

Why do republicans _STRIVE_ to be such trash, 100% of their lives? I just don't get it.


----------



## Jayro (Jul 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I still remember all the pro-birthers saying, in the Roe V Wade thread, "There is NO NEED for abortion, contraception is enough and people should learn responsible sex". I called them on their lies, and they said what I wanted was just to "murder babies" - FACT: foetuses are not babies and never are. I also said that contraception was going to be on the block soon, and that was ridiculed as paranoia.
> 
> Another FACT: look at the vote. Anyone with a functioning brain, or enough intellectual honesty to fill a teacup, could have seen this was about to happen.


Their own bible states that "life begins at the first breath". They're so hypocritical, it hurts.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 22, 2022)

SonowRaevius said:


> Since you are being extremely naive and gullible allow me to sell you a bridge as well.
> 
> The people that are voting against these thing are overly-religious and hate filled individuals that are only voting this way because it lines up with their own personal feelings and religious dogma and nothing more.
> 
> ...


I really don't care about your immature emotions.

Nobody has been lynched in this country in a 100 years, unless you count Jussie Smollett. 

You people think babies are parasites because you don't understand the definition of parasite or baby. It's obvious you people hate science.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 22, 2022)

Gotta keep prisons populated and military recruitment rates up somehow.  Fucking clowns showing their whole asses to the world now.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I don't think this is really true. A small percentage of the population uses Twitter, and a small percentage of those people uses Twitter extensively. A big problem for the Democrats is their constant ability to mistake Twitter's opinion on things for the American people's opinion on things. It's why they spend such a huge amount of time on identity politics, instead of the things that might actually get them elected. They've mistaken the funhouse mirror that is Twitter for reality, and they can't understand why people in the real world don't want to vote for them, when their platform seems like it should be a winner based on what matters on Twitter.


It’s obviously part hyperbole, but you must admit that new media are displacing traditional news. You can see it in peak primetime viewership figures - they’re not holding up to pop growth while an increasing number of people admit that social media are either their primary or at least an important source of news. In the United States that figure sits at 42%, and it’s growing rapidly while prime time viewership of CNN dropped by 70% in their key demo. They enjoyed a brief bump during the pandemic since people were stuck at home looking at their Idiot Boxes all day, it looks nice on a graph, but the trajectory for the future is clear. Social Media remove the middle man and democratise the news business. Is the news of equal quality? Absolutely not, no Pulitzer Awards are heading the way of internet randos, but an increasing amount of people prefer to watch a video someone shot on their phone as they witnessed an event over an opinion piece on a major news network. There’s a reason why newspapers are switching from an ad-based framework back to subscriptions - they’re struggling to churn out the clicks necessary to support themselves, they need a constant revenue stream from their key demo - old people.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/718019/social-media-news-source/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjo...se-prime-time-down-nearly-70-in-key-demo/amp/


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jul 22, 2022)

The current Republican Party in the US is a caricature of made up ideological stances. They are also an elite that can access everything they're restricting, so they're posturing for the masses and helping to mold a society from which they live apart and to whose rules they're not subject. And a bunch of muppets below them struggle and continuously adapt to rationalize, internalize and defend these impositions.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s obviously part hyperbole, but you must admit that new media are displacing traditional news.


That's true, but I think traditional TV news died a long time ago, when deregulation removed the requirement that TV networks had to operate an independent news department, even if it didn't make any money, as a requirement to access the public spectrum. I would say that cable "news" (really infotainment) is closer to what happens on social media than what happens in a traditional newsroom. Just like social media, cable news networks are primarily trying to drive viewership, and if low quality programming increases viewership, then that's what they produce.

There isn't enough actual news to fill a 24-hour news cycle (unless you expand to global news, which Americans wouldn't watch), so the cable networks fill their schedules with talking heads and other nonsense that's almost as far from actual news as what you get from Twitter. The only real difference is that a cable network has the oversight required to maintain consistent messaging, whereas Twitter randos do not. The actual content isn't really news in the traditional sense either way, though. Social media democratised the production of infotainment, but it's merely an extension of something that started long before Twitter existed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 22, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> That's true, but I think traditional TV news died a long time ago, when deregulation removed the requirement that TV networks had to operate an independent news department, even if it didn't make any money, as a requirement to access the public spectrum. I would say that cable "news" (really infotainment) is closer to what happens on social media than what happens in a traditional newsroom. Just like social media, cable news networks are primarily trying to drive viewership, and if low quality programming increases viewership, then that's what they produce.
> 
> There isn't enough actual news to fill a 24-hour news cycle (unless you expand to global news, which Americans wouldn't watch), so the cable networks fill their schedules with talking heads and other nonsense that's almost as far from actual news as what you get from Twitter. The only real difference is that a cable network has the oversight required to maintain consistent messaging, whereas Twitter randos do not. The actual content isn't really news in the traditional sense either way, though. Social media democratised the production of infotainment, but it's merely an extension of something that started long before Twitter existed.


Yellow journalism predates television. The idea that journalists exist to propagate unbiased news and inform the public is fallacious, and has been fallacious for as long as the “extra, extra, read all about it!” mentality infected the industry (and it is an industry, let’s be real). Newspapers have been competing using increasingly hyperbolic headlines for literally centuries. It takes a really diligent reader capable of ingesting multiple sources thoroughly to extract a thimble of truth from a bucket of opinions. There are very, very few journalists who do their job in a principled manner - they’re usually independent, and they fall off the map quickly because truth isn’t exciting enough, it doesn’t sell ads.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 22, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Gotta keep prisons populated and military recruitment rates up somehow.  Fucking clowns showing their whole asses to the world now.


Actually, the Army missed their recruitment goal by 28,000.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Yellow journalism predates television.


Sure, there's no such thing as total objectivity, but the for-profit TV news model ushered in by deregulation changed the stated goal of TV news from informing the public to making money, and those two things are often at odds with one another.



Foxi4 said:


> There are very, very few journalists who do their job in a principled manner - they’re usually independent, and they fall off the map quickly because truth isn’t exciting enough, it doesn’t sell ads.


Exactly, which is why the "loss leader" TV news model was so important.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 23, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Sure, there's no such thing as total objectivity, but the for-profit TV news model ushered in by deregulation changed the stated goal of TV news from informing the public to making money, and those two things are often at odds with one another.
> 
> Exactly, which is why the "loss leader" TV news model was so important.


I think the difference between you and me is that you think there was a point in time when journalists were honest and didn’t operate with an agenda in mind whereas I don’t - everyone has an agenda, be it consciously or unconsciously. This materialises in one of two ways - by selective coverage or by shameless manufacturing of narratives. I don’t even blame the journalists for that, it’s part of human nature. Everybody has a worldview and wants that worldview to propagate. Whenever I look at a news story (and they are stories, to a large extent), I read what happened, where, when and who was there, and immediately tune out the rest. This is pretty much the only way to avoid the spin zone, and that’s a sad state of affairs.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I think the difference between you and me is that you think there was a point in time when journalists were honest and didn’t operate with an agenda in mind whereas I don’t - everyone has an agenda, be it consciously or unconsciously.


What part of, "There's no such thing as total objectivity," made you think I believe there was a point in time when journalists were totally objective?  I'm not advocating for a return to a golden era when journalism was perfect. I'm saying that it's worse now than in the past, and we already know of a system that makes the problem less bad, so a reasonable first step would be to use those principles to ameliorate the current problem. Would it be 100% solved? No, but you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Giving journalists a profit motive to be unethical surely doesn't help the situation, and taking that away could at least help to some degree, right? You seem to be saying, "Well, humans are always corrupt to some extent, so there's nothing we can do," which seems excessively defeatist to me. Just because we can never win the war against corruption doesn't mean we should give up the fight.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 23, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Actually, the Army missed their recruitment goal by 28,000.


I know, that's the point.  It's why republicans want to try to force a baby boom by banning both abortion and contraceptives, there isn't enough desperation to go around for their liking right now.  Which means not enough slave labor in privatized prisons, and not enough people willing to risk dying for healthcare and college tuition by joining the military.  As far as they're concerned, the "pursuit of happiness" part of the declaration of independence only applies to the ultra rich, and the rest of us peasants should be thankful just to get stomped on.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 23, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> What part of, "There's no such thing as total objectivity," made you think I believe there was a point in time when journalists were totally objective?


Honesty and objectivity are not one and the same.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Honesty and objectivity are not one and the same.


An honest person however is more likely to be objective, or at least to try to. Disqualifying pretty much conservatives and right-wingers in general, then.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> An honest person however is more likely to be objective, or at least to try to. Disqualifying pretty much conservatives and right-wingers in general, then.


Both sides of the aisle want to make the country better - they simply have vastly different ideas on what that entails and how to achieve their goals. Dishonesty or lack of objectivity doesn’t have a political alignment. The idea that your political opposition doesn’t agree with you because they’re de facto evil is a textbook example of wearing blinders. The gross majority of mainstream media have a left-wing bias and they’re hardly objective or honest in their coverage of the news. In fact, objectivity necessitates looking at every issue from both sides - it’s the absence of such openness to ideas that fuels the problem in the first place.


----------



## g00s3y (Jul 23, 2022)

80% of this board will never need access to birth control. Just being themselves is enough.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 23, 2022)

g00s3y said:


> 80% of this board will never need access to birth control. Just being themselves is enough.


This board is definitely not 80% alt-right neckbeards.  You might be thinking of 8chan or Parler.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> In fact, objectivity necessitates looking at every issue from both sides - it’s the absence of such openness to ideas that fuels the problem in the first place.


It also needs calling BS out, which apparently doesn't happen. Since the right-wingers BSing their way to power, it's grossly unfair to say the media is largely biased in favour of left wing. Twitter has a DEMONSTRABLY OBVIOUS right-wing bias.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It also needs calling BS out, which apparently doesn't happen. Since the right-wingers BSing their way to power, it's grossly unfair to say the media is largely biased in favour of left wing.


Most media outlets that are considered “mainstream” (CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, The Guardian etc.) demonstrably have a left-wing bias. They mostly skew left.





> Twitter has a DEMONSTRABLY OBVIOUS right-wing bias.


That’s hilarious. Jack Dorsey himself admits that Twitter as a company employs primarily left-wing employees and has an overall left-wing bias, to such an extent that right-wing employees feel unsafe speaking up for fear of being ostracised. Algorithmic amplification favours right-wing content because those outlets are good at playing the Twitter game - they manage to do so *in spite* of Twitter’s alignment, not because of it. Twitter amplifies anything that gets users to react, therefore Tweets that are exaggerated, bombastic and controversial rise to the top - right-wingers know that, as do some left-wingers who also do well on the platform, although it’s mostly a right-wing thing, hence the result. Twitter favours extreme tweets because extreme tweets get extreme levels of interaction. One of the primary concerns on Twitter is the silencing of conservative voices, not amplifying them.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/20...liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Most media outlets that are considered “mainstream” (CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, The Guardian etc.) demonstrably have a left-wing bias. They mostly skew left.



They don't skew right you mean, and the right keeps going far right. Calling the BBC or the CNN left wing is patently disingenuous since if the far right keeps moving right...



Foxi4 said:


> One of the primary concerns on Twitter is the silencing of conservative voices, not amplifying them.



Not silenced enough, despite what Jack says, or what you say : https://www.theguardian.com/technol...hm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets

https://cdn.cms-twdigitalassets.com...hmic-Amplification-of-Politics-on-Twitter.pdf

In fact I'd say not silenced at all, despite your claims. Game or not game, the result is the same.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 24, 2022)

And look, the reply to all the pro-birth idiots who said "if you can't abort in a state you can just go somewhere else not an issue blah blah blah incel right-wing cope"

https://freedomfortexas.com/uploads/blog/3b118c262155759454e423f6600e2196709787a8.pdf

So, you can't have an abortion, you can't buy contraception and you can't go somewhere to have an abortion. RepubliKKKans are worse than the Church when it comes to control the behaviour of people. So much for freedom eh?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Most media outlets that are considered “mainstream” (CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, The Guardian etc.) demonstrably have a left-wing bias. They mostly skew left.
> 
> View attachment 319260


I wonder why the most reliable news outlets "skew left." Maybe it's because reality has a leftist bias.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 24, 2022)

Okay x I'm tired right now. WTF does 'codifying access to birth control' mean? 

Going by replies, i take it they want to somehow prevent the free market to provide birth control to whomever needs it, but i can't really make it out. 



g00s3y said:


> 80% of this board will never need access to birth control. Just being themselves is enough.


You're wrong. Just because you perceive everyone else as being too dumb/ugly/lonely to ever engage in sexual activities doesn't mean you're perception is correct.

Fuck... I bet at least 78% of the mature users are already 'doing it'. But by our comment, I presume you're not among those.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 24, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay x I'm tired right now. WTF does 'codifying access to birth control' mean?


It means ensuring access to birth control via law.  The only reason this is even a concern is because of things certain SCOTUS justices said in the wake of Roe v Wade being overturned.  I'd say it's because they're religious, puritanical nutjobs, but the darker truth is that they're just financially motivated, per one of my previous comments in this thread.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 24, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> Going by replies, i take it they want to somehow prevent the free market to provide birth control to whomever needs it, but i can't really make it out.


The free market is unironically a myth. Don't count on it to provide for anything.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> They don't skew right you mean, and the right keeps going far right. Calling the BBC or the CNN left wing is patently disingenuous since if the far right keeps moving right...


Argue with every single market analysis ever, not me.


> Not silenced enough, despite what Jack says, or what you say : https://www.theguardian.com/technol...hm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets
> 
> https://cdn.cms-twdigitalassets.com...hmic-Amplification-of-Politics-on-Twitter.pdf
> 
> In fact I'd say not silenced at all, despite your claims. Game or not game, the result is the same.


Your rebuttal is already addressed in what you’re replying to.


LainaGabranth said:


> I wonder why the most reliable news outlets "skew left." Maybe it's because reality has a leftist bias.


Reliable, but selective news coverage is still misinformation - it’s lying by omission.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Reliable, but selective news coverage is still misinformation - it’s lying by omission.



As opposed to lying by, you know, lying?



Foxi4 said:


> Argue with every single market analysis ever, not me.



If it's made by your "think" tanks, sure.



Foxi4 said:


> Your rebuttal is already addressed in what you’re replying to.



Is addressed and confirmed: despite their claims of censorship right-wingers enjoy far more coverage than others.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> As opposed to lying by, you know, lying? If it's made by your "think" tanks, sure.


The graph was made by Ad Fontes, the exact same source of data used for your Twitter analysis.


> To reduce subjectivity in our classification of political content, we leverage two independently curated media bias rating datasets from AllSides and *Ad Fontes Media*, and present results for both. Both datasets assign labels to media sources based on their perceived position on the U.S. media bias landscape.
> 
> - Your own source, page 5


You have to decide if it’s reliable and your rebuttal is sound or unreliable and your rebuttal is trash. It can’t be both simultaneously, it’s the same dataset. For the record, AllSides reached a similar conclusion when analysing media outlets, their classification is almost identical. In fact, it’s even more scathing in regards to CNN, NYT and MSNBC, classifying them as having a strong bias to the left. To reiterate, I claimed that most media outlets that are considered mainstream are left-leaning, and both sources support that statement.




> Is addressed and confirmed: despite their claims of censorship right-wingers enjoy far more coverage than others.


Algorithmic boosting has a strong preference towards popular tweets - it’s designed to do that. The left needs to learn how to tweet better.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that The Guardian is a rag and presented the results of the study dishonestly. I quote:



> We presented a comprehensive audit of algorithmic amplification of political content by the recommender system in Twitter’s home timeline. Across seven countries we studied, we found that mainstream right-wing parties benefit at least *as much, and often substantially more*, from algorithmic personalization as their left-wing counterparts. In agreement with this, we found that content from U.S. media outlets with a strong right-leaning bias are amplified *marginally more* than content from left-leaning sources. However, when making comparisons based on the amplification of individual politician’s accounts, rather than parties in aggregate, *we found no association between amplification and party membership*.
> 
> Our analysis of far-left and far-right parties in various countries *does not support the hypothesis that algorithmic personalization amplifies extreme ideologies more than mainstream political voices*. However, some findings point at the possibility that *strong partisan bias in news reporting is associated with higher amplification*. We note that strong partisan bias here means a consistent tendency to report news in a way favouring one party or another, and does not imply the promotion of extreme political ideology.


tl;dr Right-wing sources are boosted about as much, and sometimes more than left-wing sources. Party affiliation has no impact on amplification of politicians and extreme content isn’t amplified. Strong bias in the content seems to have a direct result on amplification. In other words, biased content that appeals to users is boosted more, and right-wingers are marginally better at curating their own feeds. Marginally. People listen to whatever reinforces their views the most. This isn’t a scathing indictment, it’s a defense against accusations in regards to deboosting at best (that’s the reason why the study was conducted in the first place, as a defense, and that makes it questionable from the get-go). The results are entirely explainable.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Reliable, but selective news coverage is still misinformation - it’s lying by omission.


Yeaaaaah this just sounds like cope to be brutally honest. There is no obligation -- morally or otherwise -- to report on the latest right wing conspiracy theory bullshit or anything that panders to the right. It's not "lying by omission" to not report misinformation. That's why the sources on the right tend to fall further down into the misinformation rabbit hole on your graph.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Yeaaaaah this just sounds like cope to be brutally honest. There is no obligation -- morally or otherwise -- to report on the latest right wing conspiracy theory bullshit or anything that panders to the right. It's not "lying by omission" to not report misinformation. That's why the sources on the right tend to fall further down into the misinformation rabbit hole on your graph.


Thankfully I don’t consider InfoWars or WorldTruth.TV to be “news sources” (and I don’t know why the authors apparently do), so there’s that. Attempting to distract from the original argument will always fall flat with me - the thesis was that most media outlets considered “mainstream” skew to the left. This is true by all available metrics. You’re the one who brought reliability of coverage into this, I never argued about it. Who’s coping, exactly?


----------



## RetroGen (Jul 25, 2022)

How are these studies defining their left/right terms?  Is it USA or worldwide?  If worldwide, then both American parties are far right and there is no significant left-wing presence.  Thus, a supposedly "left-leaning" American news outlet, would be, by worldwide standards, right-leaning.  Biden, by worldwide standards, is by no means a leftist, and may actually be closer to Reagan.  But what is far more important is factual reliability, and that's where most right-wing sources fail.

See here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2022)

RetroGen said:


> How are these studies defining their left/right terms?  Is it USA or worldwide?  If worldwide, then both American parties are far right and there is no significant left-wing presence.  Thus, a supposedly "left-leaning" American news outlet, would be, by worldwide standards, right-leaning.  Biden, by worldwide standards, is by no means a leftist, and may actually be closer to Reagan.  But what is far more important is factual reliability, and that's where most right-wing sources fail.
> 
> See here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020


You’re operating from the position of “the rest of the world” being balanced and the American spectrum being skewed right. The opposite is true - the Overton Window has been shifted so far leftwards on the Old Continent that there’s no coming back from it. The U.S. was shielded from this for the most part, Europe was heavily influenced by various socialist ideas seeping through the Iron Curtain like a disease. Spilled milk, I suppose. In any case, both sources describe their methodology on their respective websites.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 25, 2022)

RetroGen said:


> How are these studies defining their left/right terms?  Is it USA or worldwide?  If worldwide, then both American parties are far right and there is no significant left-wing presence.  Thus, a supposedly "left-leaning" American news outlet, would be, by worldwide standards, right-leaning.  Biden, by worldwide standards, is by no means a leftist, and may actually be closer to Reagan.  But what is far more important is factual reliability, and that's where most right-wing sources fail.
> 
> See here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020


Dems are more center-right, but you're correct.  Save a select few, members of both parties are capitalists first, everything else second.  So long as they're busy trying to sell us shit, they're incapable of properly representing the interests of the working class.  And nowhere is that dynamic more evident than on cable news, which is little more than a marathon of commercials these days.


----------



## RetroGen (Jul 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re operating from the position of “the rest of the world” being balanced and the American spectrum being skewed right. The opposite is true - the Overton Window has been shifted so far leftwards on the Old Continent that there’s no coming back from it. The U.S. was shielded from this for the most part, Europe was heavily influenced by various socialist ideas seeping through the Iron Curtain like a disease. Spilled milk, I suppose. In any case, both sources describe their methodology on their respective websites.


That's false.  The Overton window has actually shifted rightward since Reagan/Thatcher.  Read up on it.  The suggestion of the opposite of reality is a clear and ironic demonstration of bias.  But I'm not going to debate this further, as truth is obviously not the goal here.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Dems are more center-right, but you're correct.  Save a select few, members of both parties are capitalists first, everything else second.  So long as they're busy trying to sell us shit, they're incapable of properly representing the interests of the working class.  And nowhere is that dynamic more evident than on cable news, which is little more than a marathon of commercials these days.


The issue of the uniparty is both well-known and self-inflicted. American politics are a team sport, you’re either blue or red if you want to have a chance at winning. The only way an independent could have a chance these days is to temporarily align with one of the big two - Sanders has been running this scam for years, Trump pulled the same trick on the right, just successfully.


RetroGen said:


> That's false.  The Overton window has actually shifted rightward since Reagan/Thatcher.  Read up on it.  The suggestion of the opposite of reality is a clear and ironic demonstration of bias.  But I'm not going to debate this further, as truth is obviously not the goal here.


Just the premise of what you’re saying is hilarious, and you’re very specific regarding the time period in question, possibly because you’re well-aware that if you took a few steps back to get a bigger picture, you’d notice the actual trend. Even within your narrow confines Margaret Thatcher was a union buster. There’s an entire political ideology based on her style of governance called Thatcherism which entails the reversal of the post-war order and the dismantling of the welfare state. Half of the crap she’s pulled over the years *wouldn’t fly* in today’s climate, and the suggestion that Tories are “more conservative” now than they were in the days of Thatcher is *ridiculous*, you’d have to be myopic to actually believe that.

As far as America is concerned, the median Democrat shifted left hard, while the median Republican initially followed, then shifted back to the right. Polarisation is increasing and the center is dead - Pew researched this a few years back.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The issue of the uni party is both well-known and self-inflicted. American politics are a team sport, you’re either blue or red if you want to have a chance at winning. The only way an independent could have a chance these days is to temporarily align with one of the big two - Sanders has been running this scam for years, Trump pulled the same trick on the right, just successfully.


Sanders should've remained independent too, as it's clear the Democratic establishment is willing to keep spitting in his eye time after time, even after his acquiescence.  Trump was never "independent" in any sense of the word, that's just another lie he was only able to sell to stupid people.

Regardless, it's shit like citizens' united that ensures we'll never have any more than two parties.  You can hardly call our problems "self-inflicted" when nobody except boomers appointed by corporations have ever had the chance to shape the mold.  The path this country would take was decided for us long before we were born.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Sanders should've remained independent too, as it's clear the Democratic establishment is willing to keep spitting in his eye time after time, even after his acquiescence.  Trump was never "independent" in any sense of the word, that's just another lie he was only able to sell to stupid people.
> 
> Regardless, it's shit like citizens' united that ensures we'll never have any more than two parties.  You can hardly call our problems "self-inflicted" when nobody except boomers appointed by corporations have ever had the chance to shape the mold.  The path this country would take was decided for us long before we were born.


It’s 100% self-inflicted - the population can reject the uniparty at any time. It just won’t because it’s “the devil they know”. American politics are characterised by fear of the unknown.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> the population can reject the uniparty at any time.


We can attempt a revolution, that doesn't mean it would be successful.  Especially given that 30% to 40% of the population would fight against us on behalf of the boot they so love to lick.



Foxi4 said:


> American politics are characterised by fear of the unknown.


Nonsense, we know for a fact that what most European countries are doing works, and works well.  We don't adapt it because that would mean cutting back on corporate welfare and/or our bloated military budget.  American politics are characterized by the exploitation of cheap labor, wherever and however it can be found.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> We can attempt a revolution, that doesn't mean it would be successful.  Especially given that 30% to 40% of the population would fight against us on behalf of the boot they so love to lick.
> 
> Nonsense, we know for a fact that what most European countries are doing works, and works well.  We don't adapt it because that would mean cutting back on corporate welfare and/or our bloated military budget.  American politics are characterized by the exploitation of cheap labor, wherever and however it can be found.


Naivety is comfortable, I suppose. I like how the first solution that comes to your mind is putting a brick through a window instead of just opening the door (and there a built-in systems for doing just that), Americans truly are a nation of revolutionaries. I’m sorry that your independents suck at marketing. On the bright side American conservatives have a long history of bending the knee, so you’ll eventually get to fix what ain’t broke if you’re patient enough. They’re pretty toothless overall, with brief flash fires of passion every now and then.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 25, 2022)

The whole "corporations are people and money is speech" thing kinda cut off any third-party movements at the knees. Unless the US gets publicly funded elections, it's hard to see any third-party candidate doing anything but siphoning support from one of the two establishment candidates ever again.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Naivety is comfortable, I suppose. I like how the first solution that comes to your mind is putting a brick through a window instead of just opening the door (and there a built-in systems for doing just that)


Rofl, what "built-in systems?"  I just gave you an example of a SCOTUS ruling which ensures we'll never break free of the extremely flawed two-party system, citizens' united.  The entrenchment of the elites is beyond complete by now, we've regressed to unelected authoritarians handing down decrees from on high, like kings or gods.  It won't be too long until they drop the facade that is democracy in this country altogether.



Foxi4 said:


> I’m sorry that your independents suck at marketing.


You unintentionally hit the nail on the head here, if a candidate wants to win they have to market themselves specifically to corporate interests.  Which should never be the case in a properly functioning political system.  If Sanders was half the Reaganite that Biden is, the Democratic establishment would've had no problem making him the candidate in either 2016 or 2020.  His push for universal healthcare meant he was always going to have the rug pulled out from under him, as the party has far too many healthcare insurance and big pharma sponsors.



Foxi4 said:


> On the bright side American conservatives have a long history of bending the knee, so you’ll eventually get to fix what ain’t broke if you’re patient enough. They’re pretty toothless overall, with brief flash fires of passion every now and then.


The problem is that they bend the knee to fascists and religious extremists in particular who, once in power, are far from toothless.  They're also willing to go to any lengths, cheating or resorting to violence, to put those people in power.  The Republican party can see the writing on the wall, their last remaining policy platform of "harm the other" is not popular, which is why they're in the process of rejecting democracy wholesale.  And as long as Democrats believe they can "compromise" with that viewpoint, they're complacent in allowing the collapse of this nation.

I won't say _everything_ rides on Merrick Garland deciding to prosecute Trump, but I do believe it's a tipping point. Bad enough that the Obama admin didn't go after the war criminals Bush and Cheney to prevent the executive branch being used as a safe haven for criminality in the first place.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I won't say _everything_ rides on Merrick Garland deciding to prosecute Trump, but I do believe it's a tipping point.


I frequently read assessments that the DOJ going after a former president is unprecedented, but the POTUS trying to reverse the results of an election is also unprecedented, and it cannot be allowed to go unpunished, at least if America's constitutional framework is going to survive.


----------



## ZeroT21 (Jul 25, 2022)

It baffles me that such laws don't even exist in autocratic nations, as to why there's even a need for so many non-sensical laws speaks volumes on how corrupted their world view is.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Rofl, what "built-in systems?"  I just gave you an example of a SCOTUS ruling which ensures we'll never break free of the extremely flawed two-party system, citizens' united.  The entrenchment of the elites is beyond complete by now, we've regressed to unelected authoritarians handing down decrees from on high, like kings or gods.  It won't be too long until they drop the facade that is democracy in this country altogether.
> 
> You unintentionally hit the nail on the head here, if a candidate wants to win they have to market themselves specifically to corporate interests.  Which should never be the case in a properly functioning political system.  If Sanders was half the Reaganite that Biden is, the Democratic establishment would've had no problem making him the candidate in either 2016 or 2020.  His push for universal healthcare meant he was always going to have the rug pulled out from under him, as the party has far too many healthcare insurance and big pharma sponsors.
> 
> ...


Citizens United does not prevent independents from successfully running for office. The rest of your post is babble, I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. If you’re implying that political violence is uniquely right-wing, I disagree - we had a whole Summer of Peace that shows otherwise. In fact, your first idea was revolution, so you’re undercutting your own point. As for Trump, we’ll see what happens after the sham proceedings end.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Citizens United does not prevent independents from successfully running for office.


It requires any candidate who wants to be taken seriously secure corporate funding first, and corporations do not provide funding to any candidate that won't fall in line to support their interests.  In other words, yes, it does keep actual independents out of office, and absolutely guarantees that no third party can gain a majority in government.  Thus we don't have anybody even attempting to form new parties any more, everybody knows it's a lost cause.



Foxi4 said:


> If you’re implying that political violence is uniquely right-wing, I disagree - we had a whole Summer of Peace that shows otherwise.


A disingenuous comparison at best, as protesting murder is not inherently political but more a matter of basic human rights and dignity.  It's also something that plenty of non-voters and leftists without representation in government were a part of.  Attempting insurrection because your shitty candidate lost an election, now that's undeniably violence with a political motive, aka terrorism.



Foxi4 said:


> In fact, your first idea was revolution, so you’re undercutting your own point.


Indeed, to rid ourselves of the two-party sham.  Predictably, the system will not allow itself to be voted out of existence.  To pretend otherwise is beyond naive.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Attempting insurrection because your shitty candidate lost an election


I think there's an important distinction to be made here: they didn't attack the capitol because their candidate lost an election.

Imagine for a moment that you're a MAGA Republican, securely nestled in the bosom of Fox "News" and such, and you hear that the election was stolen, and the POTUS (who is still currently in office) is asking you to stop the fraudulently elected candidate from being falsely certified as the election winner. As a patriotic American, you would want to heed the call to save American democracy from destruction.

The scary thing isn't that Trump supporters tried to stop the certification of a legitimate election. The scary thing is that they were so easily fooled into believing it was illegitimate. The Republican rhetoric about Democrats being out to destroy the country and "our way of life" has gotten so pervasive, and the reality distortion field that shuts out any evidence to the contrary has gotten so strong, that all these people were fooled into thinking that they were saving American democracy, when in fact they came dangerously close to destroying a fundamental pillar of it (the peaceful transfer of power). If so many people can so easily and so completely be fooled into believing that, what else can they be fooled into believing in the future? These are dark times for American democracy.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 25, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I wonder why the most reliable news outlets "skew left." Maybe it's because reality has a leftist bias.


"It's not propaganda because I believe it."


----------



## smf (Jul 25, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Can you even say where in the Constitution the Congress is granted the power to enact such a law??


https://www.ushistory.org/gov/6a.asp


----------



## smf (Jul 25, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I think there's an important distinction to be made here: they didn't attack the capitol because their candidate lost an election.


Most people think of themselves as a hero in their own movie, even criminals.

So yeah, they thought they were doing the right thing. Should that mean they get away with it?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> EDIT: I forgot to mention that The Guardian is a rag and presented the results of the study dishonestly. I quote:


LOL yes, a rag. I trust the guardian more than any billionaire-owned paper like, say, the Daily Mail. Or Express. Or any murdoch press really. but yes, hate on the Guardian LMAO.


Foxi4 said:


> tl;dr Right-wing sources are boosted about as much, and sometimes more than left-wing sources. Party affiliation has no impact on amplification of politicians and extreme content isn’t amplified. Strong bias in the content seems to have a direct result on amplification. In other words, biased content that appeals to users is boosted more, and right-wingers are marginally better at curating their own feeds. Marginally. People listen to whatever reinforces their views the most. This isn’t a scathing indictment, it’s a defense against accusations in regards to deboosting at best (that’s the reason why the study was conducted in the first place, as a defense, and that makes it questionable from the get-go). The results are entirely explainable.


Actually the paper says "as much and more" and talks about "party membership", not ideology. So the point still stands. 


Foxi4 said:


> Algorithmic boosting has a strong preference towards popular tweets - it’s designed to do that. The left needs to learn how to tweet better.





Foxi4 said:


> The graph was made by Ad Fontes, the exact same source of data used for your Twitter analysis.


Not at all what I meant.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> LOL yes, a rag. I trust the guardian more than any billionaire-owned paper like, say, the Daily Mail. Or Express. Or any murdoch press really. but yes, hate on the Guardian LMAO.


It’s a biased rag, but you can read it if you want.


> Actually the paper says "as much and more" and talks about "party membership", not ideology. So the point still stands.


It says what I quoted.


> Not at all what I meant.


It doesn’t matter what you meant, it’s the same datasets.





Xzi said:


> It requires any candidate who wants to be taken seriously secure corporate funding first, and corporations do not provide funding to any candidate that won't fall in line to support their interests.  In other words, yes, it does keep actual independents out of office, and absolutely guarantees that no third party can gain a majority in government.  Thus we don't have anybody even attempting to form new parties any more, everybody knows it's a lost cause.


If anything, having that option makes it easier to run, not harder.


> A disingenuous comparison at best, as protesting murder is not inherently political but more a matter of basic human rights and dignity.  It's also something that plenty of non-voters and leftists without representation in government were a part of.  Attempting insurrection because your shitty candidate lost an election, now that's undeniably violence with a political motive, aka terrorism.


There was no insurrection, as per the FBI report regarding Jan 6th, and protesting doesn’t require rioting.


> Indeed, to rid ourselves of the two-party sham.  Predictably, the system will not allow itself to be voted out of existence.  To pretend otherwise is beyond naive.


In the same post you’re arguing for and against revolutions, both imaginary. It’s kind of amusing.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 25, 2022)

smf said:


> https://www.ushistory.org/gov/6a.asp



Do you ever read a conversation before you post?  All of that has been addressed and more.



AleronIves said:


> I think there's an important distinction to be made here: they didn't attack the capitol because their candidate lost an election.
> 
> Imagine for a moment that you're a MAGA Republican, securely nestled in the bosom of Fox "News" and such, and you hear that the election was stolen, and the POTUS (who is still currently in office) is asking you to stop the fraudulently elected candidate from being falsely certified as the election winner. As a patriotic American, you would want to heed the call to save American democracy from destruction.
> 
> The scary thing isn't that Trump supporters tried to stop the certification of a legitimate election. The scary thing is that they were so easily fooled into believing it was illegitimate. The Republican rhetoric about Democrats being out to destroy the country and "our way of life" has gotten so pervasive, and the reality distortion field that shuts out any evidence to the contrary has gotten so strong, that all these people were fooled into thinking that they were saving American democracy, when in fact they came dangerously close to destroying a fundamental pillar of it (the peaceful transfer of power). If so many people can so easily and so completely be fooled into believing that, what else can they be fooled into believing in the future? These are dark times for American democracy.



The guy got elected on the foundation that "the government is corrupt".  Isn't it just another act of an established plot?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "It's not propaganda because I believe it."


Well, there’s that and the fact that the generic graph doesn’t feature all the data points because including them all would make it unreadable. There are plenty of sources on the left that are well-within the realm of fairy tales, the graph (predictably) forms a horseshoe when more fully populated. There’s well over a thousand publications in this dataset, we’re only interested in “the mainstream”. Here’s a more populated version from 2018, lifted from Wikipedia (some publications have moved a little since then).


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I know, that's the point.  It's why republicans want to try to force a baby boom by banning both abortion and contraceptives, there isn't enough desperation to go around for their liking right now.  Which means not enough slave labor in privatized prisons, and not enough people willing to risk dying for healthcare and college tuition by joining the military.  As far as they're concerned, the "pursuit of happiness" part of the declaration of independence only applies to the ultra rich, and the rest of us peasants should be thankful just to get stomped on.


Can you back up that the reason why republicans want to force a baby boom by banning abortion and contraceptives with a link? Can you do the same with the statement that they believe that the pursuit of happiness only applies to the ultra rich?

In fact, can't you back up any of what you just said with factual sources?

I am intrigued to know where you get your conspiracy theories from.


----------



## dazindude (Jul 25, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I really don't care about your immature emotions.
> 
> Nobody has been lynched in this country in a 100 years, unless you count Jussie Smollett.
> 
> You people think babies are parasites because you don't understand the definition of parasite or baby. It's obvious you people hate science.


This is completely untrue lynchings in the united states definitely were happening well into the 1960s. Also most people would describe Ahmaud Arbery's killing as a modern lynching.
​


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "It's not propaganda because I believe it."


Quit being loose with definitions. Propaganda is a distinct term that explicitly is meant to invoke a specific response. Just because you're an epistemic nihilist doesn't mean the world functions that way.


----------



## g00s3y (Jul 25, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay x I'm tired right now. WTF does 'codifying access to birth control' mean?
> 
> Going by replies, i take it they want to somehow prevent the free market to provide birth control to whomever needs it, but i can't really make it out.
> 
> ...


Well if I'm not having sex, I guess I need to take my 8 year old to Maury and find out the truth. Maybe the past 11 years of my relationship have been a lie, and and I was just imagining things... Hell, i'm 36, so maybe I was just imagining things in every relationship for over half my life?



> 78% of mature users


Which probably equates to about 300 people out of the thousands on this board. Maybe one day you can join those ranks.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 25, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Quit being loose with definitions. Propaganda is a distinct term that explicitly is meant to invoke a specific response. Just because you're an epistemic nihilist doesn't mean the world functions that way.



Lol.  You aren't the world and I'm not being loose with the definition.  Just because I think you said something stupid doesn't mean I hate knowledge.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Lol.  You aren't the world and I'm not being loose with the definition.  Just because I think you said something stupid doesn't mean I hate knowledge.


He says, posting a link to yet talking head telling him what to think. You aren't the owner of your own thoughts.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 25, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> He says, posting a link to yet talking head telling him what to think. You aren't the owner of your own thoughts.


You seem to think you are pointing out irony.  If you are making a case against intellectual property, I'd might agree with you.

Also, characterizing Noam Chomsky as a "yet talking head" is a bit funny.  I disagree with him on some occasions, but his suggestion that the US media is more censored than the USSR was is pretty relevant to your whole "I know what the world is like and it's leftist" fantasy.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If anything, having that option makes it easier to run, not harder.


Not an option, a requirement.  And it makes it impossible to get elected on a platform that's actually focused on improving the lives of constituents above all else.



Foxi4 said:


> There was no insurrection, as per the FBI report regarding Jan 6th, and protesting doesn’t require rioting.


There was an _attempted_ insurrection that fell flat on its face.  We have corroborated testimony that Trump himself wanted to be there leading the charge.  As for peacefully protesting police brutality, it's never worked in the past, and it's not about to start working now.  Even after all the riots they continue to murder people in cold blood, so they clearly didn't get the fucking message.  It also makes zero difference who holds federal office at any given time, pigs gonna oink.



Foxi4 said:


> In the same post you’re arguing for and against revolutions, both imaginary. It’s kind of amusing.


Installing a fascist dictator would not be revolution, it would be the ultimate submission to the status quo and the whims of the oligarchs.


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 25, 2022)

I'm just reading this piece of news, and it is natural, there are political opinions here, but I'd like to call attention to one vital thing right now.

the news reads: "All house republicans except 8, vote against codifying access to birth control". This means minority of the house, so the bill was approved, no big deal right now.

What is important here is that, at least with info I have down here, on next congress election an electoral massacre (figuratively speaking) will take place in favor of Republicans, so those kinds of bills would be rejected with ease. Also the Republican party will have the power to lock federal administration budget wise like happened before.

I read this news as a tease on what will happen in the USA starting 2023. Everybody has a political view, but I see instability as a given at this point. Sadly it will be painful.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 25, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> the news reads: "All house republicans except 8, vote against codifying access to birth control". This means minority of the house, so the bill was approved, no big deal right now.


It also means it's DOA in the Senate though.  At best the public reaction to this bullshit might delay Republicans' attacks on access to contraception some, but it definitely won't be the end of them.  Clarence Thomas already gave up the game where that's concerned, and he's as much a partisan mouthpiece for the party as Trump is at this point.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> There was an _attempted_ insurrection



Yeah, sorry, that was me.  I slept in that day and forgot to show up.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jul 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ntrol-republicans-join-democrats/10117979002/
> 
> Can I even be surprised?
> "The eight Republicans who voted in favor of codifying contraceptive access are Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, John Katko of New York, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Maria Salazar of Florida and Fred Upton of Michigan.
> ...


They would have probably been all on board with making it a thing as long as it would be not covered under any form of US health insurance and you would have to pay out of pocket direct from the pharm to get them. Making it near impossible for most women to get access to it in the first place.

In otherwords if they basically did what they did to Obamacare.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 25, 2022)

Republicans are straight up anti-American lmao


----------



## tabzer (Jul 25, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Republicans are straight up anti-American lmao


By what standard is America American?

If you think the way that I think you are thinking, then you'd might consider all career politicians to be leveraging America for their own gain.  It's the American way.  Based on the rhetoric I've seen about the justification for sanctions, their persistence is kind of your own fault, no?


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 25, 2022)

smf said:


> So yeah, they thought they were doing the right thing. Should that mean they get away with it?


Where did I say that they should get away with it? To my knowledge, the DOJ has prosecuted many of the people who stormed the US Capitol. The people who attended the protest but didn't participate in the riot broke no laws. Yes, they were protesting an election theft that didn't happen, but protesting nonsense is still legal.

If the goal is to restore American democracy, rather than to vilify your political opponents, then it's better to extend an olive branch to those people and say, "Well, you got tricked. It can happen to the best of us. Let's get back to normal political activity, like arguing about the budget, OK?"

Whether you like it or not, "the other side" still makes up around half the country, so you have to work with your political opponents if you want the government to function.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s a biased rag, but you can read it if you want.


It's better than anything you read.


Foxi4 said:


> It says what I quoted.


It does, but not your interpretation of it. As usual.


Foxi4 said:


> It doesn’t matter what you meant, it’s the same datasets.


The dataset doesn't agree with your claim.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's better than anything you read.


You don’t know what I read.


> It does, but not your interpretation of it. As usual.


It’s a direct quote. I bolded the key points for you.


> The dataset doesn't agree with your claim.


You can’t simultaneously believe that the dataset is adequate to determine partisanship on Twitter, but not adequate to establish partisanship in mass media. Either the dataset is accurate or it isn’t. Seeing that both sets are pretty close, I’m going to say it’s accurate and you’re just bloviating because I caught you with your foot in your mouth.





Xzi said:


> Not an option, a requirement.  And it makes it impossible to get elected on a platform that's actually focused on improving the lives of constituents above all else.


You can self-fund, not to mention that anyone can start a PAC.


> There was an _attempted_ insurrection that fell flat on its face.  We have corroborated testimony that Trump himself wanted to be there leading the charge.  As for peacefully protesting police brutality, it's never worked in the past, and it's not about to start working now.  Even after all the riots they continue to murder people in cold blood, so they clearly didn't get the fucking message.  It also makes zero difference who holds federal office at any given time, pigs gonna oink.


There wasn’t. The FBI found scant evidence of any kind of planning or forethought, it was a spontaneous riot. Even mainstream media is distancing itself from using the term “insurrection” because what happened doesn’t fulfil the legal definition, they call it the Capitol riot because that’s what it was. Calling it anything else makes you sound foolish.


> Installing a fascist dictator would not be revolution, it would be the ultimate submission to the status quo and the whims of the oligarchs.


That’s literally how every revolution in the 20th century turned out, but don’t worry - I understand your point. It’s only a revolution when you like the guy, fair. Thankfully this one is equally imaginary as your hypothetical scenario which will never come to pass either.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There was no insurrection, as per the FBI report regarding Jan 6th, and protesting doesn’t require rioting.


ummm. wow.


Like really?
We also should probably establish that records had been tampered, since the secret service, literately had data deleted, relating to the 6th. Which, they are the kinds of people to be records keeping, which is I can't believe I'm going to say this (mild cringe)
Is incredibly sus.
edit:
Or how about Trump saying that "Maybe he deserves it"


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> ummm. wow.
> 
> 
> Like really?
> ...


We haven’t learned anything new or groundbreaking that would change the classification of the event. At best Trump could be charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. or conspiracy to obstruct. That’s charged, not found guilty, and evidence is still relatively scant. The DOJ would have to decide to press charges, and they’d have to successfully argue their case in court. We’ll see what happens - what we know for certain is that there was no insurrection.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ex...ol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/

I’m not surprised the Secret Service accidentally deleted their record due to a routine device rotation scheme - they’re incompetent, as are most government agencies. If they believed anything was worthy of preserving or putting forward, they had a year to do so, and haven’t done that.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m not surprised the Secret Service accidentally deleted their record due to a routine device rotation scheme


Yeah um. no. Secret service doesn't just casually loose records like that. It's waay too convenient. And it wasn't deleted due to a device rotation. It was deleted after oversight officials requested the records. The goverment can be incompetent, the secret service though? outside of like, two flub ups. Not really. And it was all communications between jan5 and jan6th.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> We haven’t learned anything new or groundbreaking that would change the classification of the event.


We did. Trump demanded the secret service to remove the metal detectors.  Trump said "they're not out to hurt me"
Trump was informed that they were armed. Trump knew his election claims were false, everyone around him told him that he lost. Trump also knew what he was doing, by the comment of "Maybe he deserves it"
Trump could of acted within the first 60 seconds after sitting down in his (equvilent of) lunch room. He went off script consistently, and against what his staff was telling him what he should do. He readded removed parts of his speech that his staff went over, parts that were told would pour more gas onto the fire. What we learned was that Trump knew his claims were false, went out of his way to add more flames to the fire, even after it got revised. And we learned that he was okay with it. And said that his own vice president should be hung.

He did not faithfully conduct the seat of the presidency. At best, assuming DOJ does something, that classifies easily as sedition, just like oath keepers. At worst, he actually might get the treason charge. Since Treason to the states is levying war. He brought a armed insurrection to the capital. His intent was obvious,  he wanted the election process to completely halt, and kill the officials that didn't fall in line.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Yeah um. no. Secret service doesn't just casually loose records like that. It's waay too convenient. And it wasn't deleted due to a device rotation. It was deleted after oversight officials requested the records. The goverment can be incompetent, the secret service though? outside of like, two flub ups. Not really. And it was all communications between jan5 and jan6th.


The records were deleted during a routine device rotation. They were supposed to be backed up, but weren’t.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/07/19/secr...ges-expected-by-january-6-panel-17023105/amp/


Nothereed said:


> We did. Trump demanded the secret service to remove the metal detectors.  Trump said "they're not out to hurt me"
> Trump was informed that they were armed. Trump knew his election claims were false, everyone around him told him that he lost. Trump also knew what he was doing, by the comment of "Maybe he deserves it"
> Trump could of acted within the first 60 seconds after sitting down in his (equvilent of) lunch room. He went off script consistently, and against what his staff was telling him what he should do. He readded removed parts of his speech that his staff went over, parts that were told would pour more gas onto the fire. What we learned was that Trump knew his claims were false, went out of his way to add more flames to the fire, even after it got revised. And we learned that he was okay with it. And said that his own vice president should be hung.
> 
> He did not faithfully conduct the seat of the presidency. At best, assuming DOJ does something, that classifies easily as sedition, just like oath keepers. At worst, he actually might get the treason charge. Since Treason to the states is levying war. He brought a armed insurrection to the capital. His intent was obvious,  he wanted the election process to completely halt, and kill the officials that didn't fall in line.


Not even the committee itself is making such outrageous claims. The only likely charges are conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to obstruct. An incitement charge would be stronger, but highly unlikely due to the content of his speech, more specifically the statement "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” - that part shields him rather strongly. Sedition charges are a pipedream, that’s not going to happen. There’s very little evidence to any of the three charges and no evidence to support your suggestion. They’re working primarily on testimonies - that wouldn’t hold in real court, only in kangaroo court.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/24/jan-6-committee-hearings-trump/10108452002/

If I were to make an honest assessment of the hearings, I’d say that Congress is always all too happy to punish Trump, regardless of whether the evidence against him is conclusive or not - he’s already been impeached twice. With that being said, this is not a trial - pressing actual charges would be up to the DOJ, and the DOJ won’t press any unless they believe they can successfully prosecute Trump. That’s what everything hinges upon, so until the DOJ makes a move, we’re discussing hypotheticals.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> We did. Trump demanded the secret service to remove the metal detectors.  Trump said "they're not out to hurt me"
> Trump was informed that they were armed. Trump knew his election claims were false, everyone around him told him that he lost. Trump also knew what he was doing, by the comment of "Maybe he deserves it"
> Trump could of acted within the first 60 seconds after sitting down in his (equvilent of) lunch room. He went off script consistently, and against what his staff was telling him what he should do. He readded removed parts of his speech that his staff went over, parts that were told would pour more gas onto the fire. What we learned was that Trump knew his claims were false, went out of his way to add more flames to the fire, even after it got revised. And we learned that he was okay with it. And said that his own vice president should be hung.
> 
> He did not faithfully conduct the seat of the presidency. At best, assuming DOJ does something, that classifies easily as sedition, just like oath keepers. At worst, he actually might get the treason charge. Since Treason to the states is levying war. He brought a armed insurrection to the capital. His intent was obvious,  he wanted the election process to completely halt, and kill the officials that didn't fall in line.



How do you out-liberal the media?  Have you been on the twitter too long?  

Besides...  if you are an American and not attempting an insurrection, at least once a week, then you might be apart of the problem.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 26, 2022)

dazindude said:


> This is completely untrue lynchings in the united states definitely were happening well into the 1960s. Also most people would describe Ahmaud Arbery's killing as a modern lynching.
> ​


Did you ask most people or are you just making shit up?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> ummm. wow.
> 
> 
> Like really?
> ...



Now list all of the people who have been indicted for insurrection, sedition or treason.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 26, 2022)

tabzer said:


> then you'd might consider all career politicians to be leveraging America for their own gain


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


>


I knew we could find common ground. It just took us a while. I also love that meme.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 26, 2022)

I don't know what anyone expected but yes the leftist chick on the internet hates *all* politicians and the entire political system, idk why anyone would be stupid enough to believe otherwise.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I don't know what anyone expected but yes the leftist chick on the internet hates *all* politicians and the entire political system, idk why anyone would be stupid enough to believe otherwise.


Imagine getting a compliment from somebody you disagree with and still posting a comment like this. You must be fun at parties.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 26, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Imagine getting a compliment from somebody you disagree with and still posting a comment like this. You must be fun at parties.


I was literally agreeing with you?????????


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I was literally agreeing with you?????????


Technically, yes, but damn, turn that frown upside down, girl.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 26, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Technically, yes, but damn, turn that frown upside down, girl.


Goth bitches don't smile. It's not as cool.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Jul 26, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Imagine getting a compliment from somebody you disagree with and still posting a comment like this. You must be fun at parties.


You didnt understand that she agreed with you, didnt you.... or your just very salty. but just in case, WHOOSH


----------



## dazindude (Jul 26, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Did you ask most people or are you just making shit up?


Definitely most people I've spoken to on both sides of the political aisle agree that his killing was unwarranted and fits the textbook definition of it. However some people I spoke to didn't like the use of the word in this context because they think it implies a racial motivation to be fair though in this case there  kind of was racial motivation or at the very least it was motivated by racial biases and assumptions but lynching isn't an exclusive term for when black people are killed by a group/ mob it can literally happen to anyone of any race or creed. Also honestly I shouldn't even have used that as an example because somehow a man getting slaughtered in the street is still controversial. I should have just mentioned that the Emmett Till lynching happened in 1955 which was definitely not a hundred years ago and it's arguably one of the most prominent cases.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 26, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You can’t simultaneously believe that the dataset is adequate to determine partisanship on Twitter, but not adequate to establish partisanship in mass media. Either the dataset is accurate or it isn’t. Seeing that both sets are pretty close, I’m going to say it’s accurate and you’re just bloviating because I caught you with your foot in your mouth.


And, unsurprisingly, you'd be wrong, as usual, as I'm not questioning the dataset, I'm questioning your questionable conclusions which you questionably are trying to draw for your (un)questionable aims.


Foxi4 said:


> You don’t know what I read.


Heh, the man of mystery again!


Foxi4 said:


> It’s a direct quote. I bolded the key points for you.


I read it before I posted, luckily I also understood it - disagreeing with you is part of it.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 26, 2022)

@Foxi4, how does it feel to be the adopted father figure for those experiencing belated (or prolonged) teenage angst?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Goth bitches don't smile. It's not as cool.


You're right. I remember back in high school in the early 90's and I would crack jokes and goth bitches would laugh. It was a little unnerving. I had no idea that goth was still around though.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 26, 2022)

dazindude said:


> Definitely most people I've spoken to on both sides of the political aisle agree that his killing was unwarranted and fits the textbook definition of it. However some people I spoke to didn't like the use of the word in this context because they think it implies a racial motivation to be fair though in this case there  kind of was racial motivation or at the very least it was motivated by racial biases and assumptions but lynching isn't an exclusive term for when black people are killed by a group/ mob it can literally happen to anyone of any race or creed. Also honestly I shouldn't even have used that as an example because somehow a man getting slaughtered in the street is still controversial. I should have just mentioned that the Emmett Till lynching happened in 1955 which was definitely not a hundred years ago and it's arguably one of the most prominent cases.


I'm well aware of the Emmett Till case. But if you have to go all the way back to 1955 for an example, then one can conclude that it is not an issue in today's society. We have major issues today that the corporate media and the uniparty are trying to ignore. Namely child sexual abuse that affects millions of children worldwide. For the life of me, I don't understand how people can turn a blind eye against it or worse yet, actively protect the practice.


----------



## dazindude (Jul 26, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I'm well aware of the Emmett Till case. But if you have to go all the way back to 1955 for an example, then one can conclude that it is not an issue in today's society. We have major issues today that the corporate media and the uniparty are trying to ignore. Namely child sexual abuse that affects millions of children worldwide. For the life of me, I don't understand how people can turn a blind eye against it or worse yet, actively protect the practice.


Why are you trying to deflect to child sex abuse? That's not at all what we were discussing but sure why not can you give me an example of child sex abuse that the corporate media ignores?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 26, 2022)

dazindude said:


> Why are you trying to deflect to child sex abuse? That's not at all what we were discussing but sure why not can you give me an example of child sex abuse that the corporate media ignores?


I'm not deflecting, just stating an example of a more immediate problem. The left likes to focus on the distant past because it gives them a way to virtue signal without ever doing real work. 

You do understand that Ghislaine Maxwell was just sentenced to 20 for child sex trafficking and you do understand that there is another party to that transaction, right? People had to receive those trafficked children. There's also NXIVM and the fact that around 180 teachers have been indicted on child sex abuse this year alone. Not to mention John of God, Oprah's guru was convicted of international child trafficking.

Why am I having to give you examples? There are so many examples, I shouldn't have to list the biggest ones for you. Are you not the least bit curious about this topic or do you believe it just doesn't happen? It's not just white kids who are abused, its kids from all races. One would think the left would be all over this, but they are not for some reason. It's the weirdest thing. Who is the left and the media protecting? Guess we'll find out soon enough.


----------



## dazindude (Jul 26, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I'm not deflecting, just stating an example of a more immediate problem. The left likes to focus on the distant past because it gives them a way to virtue signal without ever doing real work.
> 
> You do understand that Ghislaine Maxwell was just sentenced to 20 for child sex trafficking and you do understand that there is another party to that transaction, right? People had to receive those trafficked children. There's also NXIVM and the fact that around 180 teachers have been indicted on child sex abuse this year alone. Not to mention John of God, Oprah's guru was convicted of international child trafficking.
> 
> Why am I having to give you examples? There are so many examples, I shouldn't have to list the biggest ones for you. Are you not the least bit curious about this topic or do you believe it just doesn't happen? It's not just white kids who are abused, its kids from all races. One would think the left would be all over this, but they are not for some reason. It's the weirdest thing. Who is the left and the media protecting? Guess we'll find out soon enough.


Sorry if I offended you The only reason I said deflection was because you're acting as though a lack of action in these cases or in these situations is due to a lack of media attention when that's not the case. The people in power in the Republican party and the Democratic party or both implicated in these cases so are many other rich people the control of information is a class issue. Also I'm in no way defending corporate media but you can literally see CNN referencing it right here it took me half a second of googling to find this everyone is covering as information for all the cases you mentioned comes out if incredibly rich people are preventing information from coming out and preventing the investigation from going forward that's the thing that needs to be resolved You're angry at the wrong people https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn.../ghislaine-maxwell-prison-transfer/index.html

This is the same problem Qanon had they were so busy trying to attack specific people in politics and specific perceived sexual trafficking they literally ignored that Q was literally posting to 8 Chan which was a place where people shared and enabled others to produce child pornography people really do try to whitewash it and say that he was posting to 4chan which is still a deplorable shithole but it doesn't have as big of a focus and content sections dedicated to specifically sharing and enabling child pornography. And now we literally have Jim Watkins the person who was running 8chan running for a political seat and literally being supported by people who refer to themselves as the most anti child abuse group. The point I'm trying to make here is typically the same people shouting from the rooftops about this problem are directly involved or are some of the worst advocates against it. This is why I asked for an example because I had a feeling that you were going to choose things that are being widely talked about and reported on by news as the information comes out.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 26, 2022)

tabzer said:


> @Foxi4, how does it feel to be the adopted father figure for those experiencing belated (or prolonged) teenage angst?


I am only to be called “daddy” in an erotic context, and only by my missus.


Dark_Ansem said:


> And, unsurprisingly, you'd be wrong, as usual, as I'm not questioning the dataset, I'm questioning your questionable conclusions which you questionably are trying to draw for your (un)questionable aims.
> 
> Heh, the man of mystery again!
> 
> I read it before I posted, luckily I also understood it - disagreeing with you is part of it.


You do you. If you want to live in a reality where Twitter functions as a conservative news aggregator, that’s fine. I personally find the platform insufferable, as do most right-leaning people.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 26, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I am only to be called “daddy” in an erotic context, and only by my missus.


Please never ever mention something so horrific ever again.


Foxi4 said:


> You do you. If you want to live in a reality where Twitter functions as a conservative news aggregator, that’s fine. I personally find the platform insufferable, as do most right-leaning people.


What are you talking about, they were doing cartwheels of joy at the idea of Elon Musk buying it!


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Please never ever mention something so horrific ever again.


Okay prude.


> What are you talking about, they were doing cartwheels of joy at the idea of Elon Musk buying it!


As were most people thoroughly disappointed by the current management of the site. Twitter is the only SM giant that sucks such a big one that the community came up with not one, not two, but multiple alternatives with the same/similar framework. They exist solely due to Twitter’s aggressive policing of content. Mastodon instances are pretty great, but they still don’t have the same kind of reach despite being connected into a giant mesh - too nerdy for the average user. People aren’t ready for decentralised SM’s.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 26, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Here’s a more populated version from 2018, lifted from Wikipedia (some publications have moved a little since then).


I get most of my news from the local newspaper, which uses a combination of local reporting and AP/NYT/WP etc. for national news, depending on current licensing agreements. I've gotten the impression that the AP is more balanced than the other national news sources, so it's good to see some data that supports my hunch.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I get most of my news from the local newspaper, which uses a combination of local reporting and AP/NYT/WP etc. for national news, depending on current licensing agreements. I've gotten the impression that the AP is more balanced than the other national news sources, so it's good to see some data that supports my hunch.


AP *used to* be pretty unbiased, their specific business model lends to objectivity because they generate “news for sale”. Their articles are primarily designed to be picked up by other news sources rather than the public, so they tend to stick to the facts and leave the spin for the experts. Nowadays I do notice them slipping every now and then though in articles aimed at the public, they’re getting into that space themselves more than they used to. Still relatively good, but not gospel by any means - nothing is.

If I want to research something, I tend to look at articles from multiple sources that have different alignments, eliminate any information that is not corroborated by all (or at least most) of those sources and whatever’s left is what everybody agrees upon. That tends to be closest to the truth, but even after extrapolating the useful information you still need to use some critical thinking to determine if it’s worthwhile or not. A lot of times an event, when stripped of partisan politicking, is simply not that newsworthy, but sources still report on it because it’s a slow news week and we can’t have a 24/7 news cycle without any news to report on.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 27, 2022)

dazindude said:


> Sorry if I offended you The only reason I said deflection was because you're acting as though a lack of action in these cases or in these situations is due to a lack of media attention when that's not the case. The people in power in the Republican party and the Democratic party or both implicated in these cases so are many other rich people the control of information is a class issue. Also I'm in no way defending corporate media but you can literally see CNN referencing it right here it took me half a second of googling to find this everyone is covering as information for all the cases you mentioned comes out if incredibly rich people are preventing information from coming out and preventing the investigation from going forward that's the thing that needs to be resolved You're angry at the wrong people https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn.../ghislaine-maxwell-prison-transfer/index.html
> 
> This is the same problem Qanon had they were so busy trying to attack specific people in politics and specific perceived sexual trafficking they literally ignored that Q was literally posting to 8 Chan which was a place where people shared and enabled others to produce child pornography people really do try to whitewash it and say that he was posting to 4chan which is still a deplorable shithole but it doesn't have as big of a focus and content sections dedicated to specifically sharing and enabling child pornography. And now we literally have Jim Watkins the person who was running 8chan running for a political seat and literally being supported by people who refer to themselves as the most anti child abuse group. The point I'm trying to make here is typically the same people shouting from the rooftops about this problem are directly involved or are some of the worst advocates against it. This is why I asked for an example because I had a feeling that you were going to choose things that are being widely talked about and reported on by news as the information comes out.


Wow, you found one story on CNN about Ghislaine Maxwell and it was about her prison transfer. You do know that the corporate media has to pepper in some truth or the people's trust in them would be lower than the current 14%.

There's no such thing as QAnon.

If you are going to draw a link just because Q posts to an open message board that has child porn, then let's connect Joe Biden and every other Twitter user since there is massive amounts of child porn there. Same with Facebook or Meta or whatever their name is this week. Guilt by association is not a winning argument, especially since there is no association there.

Of course I would use widely talked about examples over obscure examples. I have no idea what knowledge you possess. Typically, leftists ignore these stories unless they can somehow include the bad orange man without showing proof.


----------



## dazindude (Jul 27, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Wow, you found one story on CNN about Ghislaine Maxwell and it was about her prison transfer. You do know that the corporate media has to pepper in some truth or the people's trust in them would be lower than the current 14%.
> 
> There's no such thing as QAnon.
> 
> ...


Yeah I'm just going to stop talking clearly you don't actually live in reality. This conversation is going nowhere and it's a waste of my time. And also the Qanon mention was mostly a comparison about how people like you get weaponized in very dumb ways by political causes. You literally couldn't give me an example of a case not even covered by mainstream media. It's very weird how you made requests of me in the conversation that I had to comply with otherwise I would be wrong but whenever I asked any questions or asked for a source on anything you just start deflected like some kind of seething SJW. Have a nice day.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2022)

dazindude said:


> Yeah I'm just going to stop talking clearly you don't actually live in reality. This conversation is going nowhere and it's a waste of my time. And also the Qanon mention was mostly a comparison about how people like you get weaponized in very dumb ways by political causes. You literally couldn't give me an example of a case not even covered by mainstream media. It's very weird how you made requests of me in the conversation that I had to comply with otherwise I would be wrong but whenever I asked any questions or asked for a source on anything you just start deflected like some kind of seething SJW. Have a nice day.


He made a very clear and concise point, actually. Maxwell and Epstein were arrested under the suspicion of engaging in sex trafficking minors, and they happened to be very well-connected. Someone bought those child prostitutes, and if anyone would know who, it’d be Maxwell, the only living person we can ask (considering Epstein was conveniently left alone in his cell with no supervision for long enough to die). Presumably a business like this has a ledger, or a record of clients, or any sort of paper trail we could use. One would think we’d eventually hear about who those clients were, no? Unless, of course, it’d be inconvenient to publicise this list or investigate it in any way. You’re asking him to show you cases that weren’t covered by the media. How can he show you cases that weren’t covered? They weren’t covered - there’s nothing to show, by definition.

Not that this has anything to do with codifying access to birth control, it doesn’t and the whole discussion is grossly off-topic.


----------



## dazindude (Jul 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> He made a very clear and concise point, actually. Maxwell and Epstein were arrested under the suspicion of engaging in sex trafficking minors, and they happened to be very well-connected. Someone bought those child prostitutes, and if anyone would know who, it’d be Maxwell, the only living person we can ask (considering Epstein was conveniently left alone in his cell with no supervision for long enough to die). Presumably a business like this has a ledger, or a record of clients, or any sort of paper trail we could use. One would think we’d eventually hear about who those clients were, no? Unless, of course, it’d be inconvenient to publicise this list or investigate it in any way. You’re asking him to show you cases that weren’t covered by the media. How can he show you cases that weren’t covered? They weren’t covered - there’s nothing to show, by definition.
> 
> Not that this has anything to do with codifying access to birth control, it doesn’t and the whole discussion is grossly off-topic.


My point is all of these cases were covered in corporate media he said they weren't and then he tried to deflect by saying well portions of them were which is why I asked him for examples if he could give me examples of things that weren't covered in corporate media again he's acting as though the lack of legal action in these cases is because of a lack of attention when that's not the case these people were very well connected they were all incredibly wealthy people it seems like the issue here is that they're incredibly wealthy people getting away with crime I am asking for that to be addressed it's very simple while he just wants to deflect and say well it's the left wing who aren't talking about this and corporate media doesn't want to cover this again he has to defer to conspiracy because he doesn't actually have an argument.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 27, 2022)

dazindude said:


> My point is all of these cases were covered in corporate media he said they weren't and then he tried to deflect by saying well portions of them were which is why I asked him for examples if he could give me examples of things that weren't covered in corporate media again he's acting as though the lack of legal action in these cases is because of a lack of attention when that's not the case these people were very well connected they were all incredibly wealthy people it seems like the issue here is that they're incredibly wealthy people getting away with crime I am asking for that to be addressed it's very simple while he just wants to deflect and say well it's the left wing who aren't talking about this and corporate media doesn't want to cover this again he has to defer to conspiracy because he doesn't actually have an argument.


It's obvious you failed to understand my comments. I said the media has not covered who Epstein and Maxwell were serving. We've heard of a little black book and flight logs. We've seen pictures of people actually on Epstein's plane and we know the FBI has all of Epstein's videos. And we still have nothing from the media. They are not even questioning the story. Why do you think trust in media is at 14%?

And where have I stated any conspiracy? You are the one who brought up QAnon and trying to link it to child porn because it's on the same site. I destroyed your argument by pointing to the fact that Twitter and Facebook have child porn also.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 27, 2022)

Corporate media is obviously complacent and there is obviously a conspiracy.  Too bad we can only theorize. +1 for transparency.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 27, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> There's no such thing as QAnon.


A correction, I was in the first Q thread on 4chan. Q wasn't really in the government, but they indeed are a real person as far as "A person posting on 4chan" is the criteria. The whole thing was a far right LARP that caught on and was either started by, or has been hijacked by Jim Watkins.

So the guy exists, the movement exists, the rhetoric exists, and the cultists exist. It, ergo, demonstrably exists. It's like saying Antifa doesn't exist because there's no leader, very politically illiterate behavior.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 27, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> A correction, I was in the first Q thread on 4chan. Q wasn't really in the government, but they indeed are a real person as far as "A person posting on 4chan" is the criteria. The whole thing was a far right LARP that caught on and was either started by, or has been hijacked by Jim Watkins.
> 
> So the guy exists, the movement exists, the rhetoric exists, and the cultists exist. It, ergo, demonstrably exists. It's like saying Antifa doesn't exist because there's no leader, very politically illiterate behavior.


I never said that Q didn't exist. I said there's no such thing as QAnon. There is Q and there are anons, but no QAnon. This is how I know when people do not understand the subject they are talking about. They tend to use corporate media labels that are fed to them.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 28, 2022)

People who think they know Jim Watkins is Q are probably the same people who think Craig Wright is Satoshi.  "I was in the original Q post".  Lol.  Unless you have a moronic post that you want to take credit for, everyone was in it.


----------



## dazindude (Jul 28, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's obvious you failed to understand my comments. I said the media has not covered who Epstein and Maxwell were serving. We've heard of a little black book and flight logs. We've seen pictures of people actually on Epstein's plane and we know the FBI has all of Epstein's videos. And we still have nothing from the media. They are not even questioning the story. Why do you think trust in media is at 14%?
> 
> And where have I stated any conspiracy? You are the one who brought up QAnon and trying to link it to child porn because it's on the same site. I destroyed your argument by pointing to the fact that Twitter and Facebook have child porn also.


Again you keep doing this deflection about the media but every time I try googling any is the things you talk about I find that the media has covered it and not only the media has covered it literally basically every corporate media group has covered it. I think it's kind of weird that you would provide that argument that 8chan is just like these other sites and the sites have user generated content. 8chan existed expressly for that purpose it's not a website that exists for people to socialize and generate whatever content you wanted it's that the entire site had specific sections for specific kinds it existed specifically to facilitate the exchange of that material wow I can't I can't believe you would even like try to use a false equivalency here again like maybe you need to reevaluate some of your view on the world if you think there's no difference between a website that is created for people to share normal things and a website that literally advocates for illegal material to be uploaded to it.  I don't really argue with people who are just being completely disingenuous if you applied the same standard of judgment across the board you would see see that there is no comparison.


----------



## dazindude (Jul 28, 2022)

tabzer said:


> People who think they know Jim Watkins is Q are probably the same people who think Craig Wright is Satoshi.  "I was in the original Q post".  Lol.  Unless you have a moronic post that you want to take credit for, everyone was in it.


Yeah those people are crazy but you can definitely see how he profited off of it he founded several websites in order to receive donations to create promotional materials as well as merchandise I don't think he's Q I just think he's a person who saw an easy way to profit off of dumb conspiracy boomers.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

dazindude said:


> Again you keep doing this deflection about the media but every time I try googling any is the things you talk about I find that the media has covered it and not only the media has covered it literally basically every corporate media group has covered it. I think it's kind of weird that you would provide that argument that 8chan is just like these other sites and the sites have user generated content. 8chan existed expressly for that purpose it's not a website that exists for people to socialize and generate whatever content you wanted it's that the entire site had specific sections for specific kinds it existed specifically to facilitate the exchange of that material wow I can't I can't believe you would even like try to use a false equivalency here again like maybe you need to reevaluate some of your view on the world if you think there's no difference between a website that is created for people to share normal things and a website that literally advocates for illegal material to be uploaded to it.  I don't really argue with people who are just being completely disingenuous if you applied the same standard of judgment across the board you would see see that there is no comparison.


Your gonna have to prove that 8chan was created expressly for the purpose of sharing child porn.

I used Twitter and Facebook as examples to show the fallacy of your "guilt by association" argument. Just because Twitter and Facebook were designed for people to socialize does not absolve them of the content that is hosted on their servers, many here in the US under US jurisdiction. Funny how they can ban memes but can't find a way to ban illegal content of children. What a mystery.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 28, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I never said that Q didn't exist. I said there's no such thing as QAnon. There is Q and there are anons, but no QAnon. This is how I know when people do not understand the subject they are talking about. They tend to use corporate media labels that are fed to them.


There objectively is a QAnon, it's just Q. Don't try to split hairs if you aren't familiar with the website that spawned that boomer nonsense.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Jul 28, 2022)

dose anybody know whats going on in this thread, it seems like TraderpatXT is failing harshly to the others, its its quite the fun read.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> There objectively is a QAnon, it's just Q. Don't try to split hairs if you aren't familiar with the website that spawned that boomer nonsense.



Qanon is a _subjective _attempt to assess and quantify the role of Q, its representation, and its outcome (influence).


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> There objectively is a QAnon, it's just Q. Don't try to split hairs if you aren't familiar with the website that spawned that boomer nonsense.


QAnon is a corporate media term that you are regurgitating. The term does not describe anybody or any group. It's a fake term and you fell for it. Congrats.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 28, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> QAnon is a corporate media term that you are regurgitating. The term does not describe anybody or any group. It's a fake term and you fell for it. Congrats.


Wrong, "-anon" was a term that'd be used for all kinds of people on that board. LARPanon, drawanon, femanon, etc. He was collectively called "Qanon" by people in those threads because of his theorized Q level clearance by people in the threads.

Being a contrarian doesn't work when your contrarian shtick is just being wrong LOL


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Wrong, "-anon" was a term that'd be used for all kinds of people on that board. LARPanon, drawanon, femanon, etc. He was collectively called "Qanon" by people in those threads because of his theorized Q level clearance by people in the threads.
> 
> Being a contrarian doesn't work when your contrarian shtick is just being wrong LOL


You might want to read post 4881. It's specifically addressed there. You are making this harder than it really is.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Wrong, "-anon" was a term that'd be used for all kinds of people on that board. LARPanon, drawanon, femanon, etc. He was collectively called "Qanon" by people in those threads because of his theorized Q level clearance by people in the threads.
> 
> Being a contrarian doesn't work when your contrarian shtick is just being wrong LOL



Do you have some examples of Q being addressed as Qanon by members of the board, at least prior to media reports trying to coin the term for their own ambitions?  The thing is, what you say is at odds with both Wikipedia and how media reports on the subject.  Are you Qanon?


----------

