Is the U.S. Constitution still being protected?

Jump to Last Post 1-34 of 34 discussions (262 posts)
  1. profile image69
    KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

    It is sad to me to see those who took the oath to Uphold, Protect and Defend our Constitution failing the oath they took. Many from mayors of cities up to the current president are failing the oath they took. Even inside the military to the DOJ, CIA, FBI and even the SCOTUS itself has an agend to support a party, than the Contitution.

    And it seems that far to many who took the oath are not doing their jobs. What's happening to America? Does the Oath to Uphold, Protect and Defend have any true meaning anymore by those who take the Oath? And why aren't they held accountable when thy don't. iWouldn't that be Protecting and Defending the Constitution?

    1. James A Watkins profile image86
      James A Watkinsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      The Left has despised the Constitution since at least the times of Woodrow Wilson. Part of Progressive Ideology is to dismantle the Constitution.

      1. profile image69
        KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        Yes I agree, and yet many "Progrsessive" and others in government who took the Oath to Uphold the Constitution are the same ones who are trying to dismantle it. They should be removed from office and held accountable.

        But worst of all, when they violate their oath, they're never called out by others whose job it is to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution.

    2. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I think all people in this country should know this. It is a crime to violate the "Oath" of Office to protect the Constitution Of the United States. Which means it's a Federual Crime if violated, according to the 5 U.S.Code 3331.

    3. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I will further add the 5 U.S. Code 7311 which directly covers violating the Oath of Protecting the Constitution. This means it's a Federal Crime to violate the Oath.

    4. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
      Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      They do not understand The Constitution and how it protects our rights.
      They have never studied The Federalist Papers or have read any of the works by the enlightened thinkers who inspired the framers of The Bill of Rights and The Constitution. They have simple minds which are emotional in nature. Those who trample feel hatred and derive power from expressing it. They are unrefined in their thinking abilities and they are negative in their attitudes and beliefs.

      They neither see nor value what The Constitution of the United States protects. Even here, we do not discuss it. Why is positivity such a difficult thing to embrace? It is a simple matter of freedom and liberty within the boundaries of legal laws, and protected by the checks and balances which are built into our governmental system, providing fairness and equality of opportunity for all. Some just don't believe it, I guess.

      "But worst of all, when they violate their oath, they're never called out by others whose job it is to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution."

      ... and about those who do nothing to call it out ...
      Politicians in government have no excuse. None. Biden needs to be impeached based on the Afghanistan withdrawal and the border crisis.

      The average citizen does not feel the call of duty to serve the people through political offices. That needs to change ...
      and in fact, it is, so, I say to McGee, watch the new trend, It does show a turning or the tide. It needs to happen more quickly, and more people need to step up.

      https://nclalegal.org/biden-executive-orders/

    5. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      It is very clear to me that biden does not care about the Oath he took to protect our Constitution. That is also true abouit many Liberals and Democrats in government. Whether a State of Federual level. If they refuse to stand by their Oath to uphold our Constitution, then they should be removed from whatever office they hold.

  2. Stephen Tomkinson profile image91
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 23 months ago

    Would someone care to post some concrete examples?

    1. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      In 2020 BLM and Antifa coommited acts of sedition in violation of the Contitution when they setting up CHAZ in a 6 block area in the middle of Seattle, Washington which meant the U.S. Law no longer applied. The Mayor of the city at the time did nothing to stop it. For over a month the Mayor stopped Local Law Enforcement from entering CHAZ to enforce the law. As a result 4 people died inside CHAZ by the thugs within CHAZ and those responible were never held accountable. The Mayor was also never held accountable. The Governer of Washingtion State also did NOTHING to stop what was happening. The Oath to uphold the Constitution was crap on by the mayor and Governer of that state. None of those involve with CHAZ were never arrested and charged with sedition.

      Then you have Mayor Wheeler of Portland, Oregon who allowed the insurrection by members of BLM and Antifa when they attacked and tried to burn down a Federual court house in Portland during 150 plus days of rioting. During that time the Federual Court House was defended by Federual police Officers. The Mayor Wheeler did nothing to aid or assist the Federual Police inside and outside the Federual court house. Mayor Wheeler refused to let local police stop the rioting and burning of the court house. As a result many Federual police Officers were badly injured.

      Insurrection is a violation of Federual Law. Mayor Wheeler and the Govener of Oregon stood by and did NOTHING. And BLM and Antifa who were involved were NEVER charge with insurrection.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
        Miebakagh57posted 23 months agoin reply to this

        Why were all these done against former President Trump, was all that I ask two years ago.

        1. abwilliams profile image67
          abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          Good question Meibakagh! Why indeed? He didn't belong; the establishment in Washington D.C. didn't want him there. He was a President of the people and they are a D.C. all for themselves, right now. Hoping and praying, people are beginning to see the light and understand that truth!

    2. Sharlee01 profile image79
      Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I will list a couple of recent problems where a president decided to try to sidestep the Constitution.  Many previous presidents sidestepped the Constitution.   

      President Biden seems determined to disregard our Constitution. After actually stating he lacked the power to prevent landlords from evicting those who don’t pay their rent, Biden did it anyway.   The    Supreme Court’s decision striking down that action came quickly.   Biden invented yet another power for himself: to force private employers to require their workers to get vaccinated. That did not work for him either. The Supreme Court blocked President the rule requiring workers at large companies to be vaccinated or masked and tested weekly.

      1. profile image69
        KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        And the fact that biden has opened our south border to illegal aliens in the millions which places greater risk to U.S. citizens and our Constitution.

        I don's see biden keeping his Oath.

  3. Stephen Tomkinson profile image91
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 23 months ago

    Thanks for the examples. I can see why people get angry about them. But do these actions actually run counter to the Constitution?

    1. Sharlee01 profile image79
      Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Well, some Constitutional experts say they do. Presidential Abuse of Power

  4. Stephen Tomkinson profile image91
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 23 months ago

    Does the Constitution mention abuse of power?

    1. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      When the president staTes he/she has no authority to take action on an issue and does so anywayI believe that would fall into the area of abuse of power. Regardless if the exact words "abuse of power" are stated in the Constitution or not. When a president states he/she has no authority under the Constitution act on something and does it regardless, then that settles it. He/She abuse their power.

  5. Stephen Tomkinson profile image91
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 23 months ago

    I do see what you mean, Ken. But I'm not so sure. I have no authority to stop someone walking down the street, but if I think that they are about to attack someone, I would stop them anyway. This could be seen as abuse of power, I suppose.

    1. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I understand what you are saying. But I'm talking about individuals who took an "Oath" to Uphold, Protect and Deffend the Constitution. Just like Police Officers who take an Oath to Uphold the Law, there by stopping or arresting individuals who may or did attack someone.

  6. Nathanville profile image93
    Nathanvilleposted 23 months ago

    I notice in your comments that you are attacking left-wing groups such as BLM and Antifa, what about the attack on the Capital Building in Washington, D.C. by over 2,000 of Trump supporters (right-wing)?

    Besides the actions by BLM and Antifa are not (as far as I can see from across the pond, in Europe) an attack on the American Constitution, it’s just a fight for ‘Freedom’, ‘Justice’ and ‘Liberty’ for all.  Historically, it’s always been the struggle by the left-wing that has strengthened the Freedom, Justice and Liberty for all e.g. the Trade Union movements in the 19th & 20th centuries to win workers’ rights, and the Suffragette who won the vote for women.

    In Bristol, England, where I live, the BLM group are heroes; specifically, during the BLM protests and riots around the world in 2020, following the murder of a black man by an American policemen in the USA, protestors in Bristol toppled the statue of a slave trader – and earlier this year the four main culprits (who admitted their guilt) were found ‘NOT GUILTY’ by their fellow jurors in a Court of Law.

    Edward Colston: Four found not guilty of criminal damage after Bristol statue toppled:  https://youtu.be/fQOAlDKRQfw

    1. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      BLM and Antifa are a bunch of marxist thugs no matter where they are located. But that is not the point I was trying to make. The point is that during the act of sedition and insurrection in Seattle and Portland in 2020 the Mayors and Groverns of these two cities and states made no attampt to stop the sedition and insurrection occuring in their cities and states. The mayhem lasted for months on in. The Mayor violated their Oath the Protect the Constitution, let alone their cities.

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        You are right.  Also, people forget to add that BLM has a convicted terrorist who sits on their board.  A terrorist pardoned by Bill Clinton.  BLM leaders have also used the money given to them to purchase personal homes worth millions of dollars.  This is also a crooked organization.  There is nothing heroic about BLM.

        1. profile image69
          KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          I didn't know that, thanks for the info.

        2. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          Exactly.

      2. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        So in other words you support fascism and racism.

        1. Readmikenow profile image96
          Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          If you support Antifa and BLM it, is YOU who support fascism and racism. BLM and Antifa supporters may not be able to grasp this reality, but that speaks volumes about them and their ability to comprehend the truth about what they support.

          ALSO, you may not realize it, but there is nothing heroic about tearing down a statue.  Were they putting their lives on the line?  Were they taking fire from an enemy? In the US, many communities wanted statutes torn down and they took a vote.  Some were torn down and some were left alone.

          THAT is how you properly tear down a statue with a civilized society. 

          Members of these groups are either evil, misguided or just plain stupid.

          1. Nathanville profile image93
            Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            That’s your opinion; we obviously have different views – and politics.

            As regards the toppling of the statue of the slave trader in Bristol; FYI for years the local Bristol residents lobbied the local government to take the statue down.  The local government, a Labour (Socialist) government at the time, wasn’t opposed to the idea, but it was a low priority e.g. it would have taken them years to get around to it; so come the worldwide BLM protest in 2020 we Bristolians took the law into our hands.  And as you know, when it went to Court, our fellow Bristolian jurors found the protestor who toppled the statue ‘Not Guilty’.

            In fact the result of the Bristol survey taken just days after the statue was toppled was as follows:-

            •    53% of Bristolians think that everything named after Colston and other slave traders in Bristol should be renamed.

            •    18% of Bristolians think that some of the places bearing his name, but not all, should be renamed.

            •    29% of Bristolians think that nothing should be renamed.

            •    61% of Bristolians said the protesters were right to pull down the statue.

            •    56% of Bristolians feel that throwing the statue in the water was the right thing to do.

            •    60% of Bristolians feel that it was not right that Bristol had the statue in the first place, because of Colston's links to the slave trade.

            •    27% of Bristolians feel the statue had its place, as it was possible to acknowledge his contribution to the city while condemning his links to the slave trade.

            •    12% of Bristolians feel that Colston was an important part of the city's history and that he deserved a statue.

            •    3% of Bristolians feel that Colston was not important enough to have a statue.

            •    57% of Bristolians feel that they did not think those responsible for toppling the statue should face criminal charges.

            It just goes to show that attitudes in Bristol, where I live, are radically different to your attitudes; different country – different cultural values.

            When the statue was toppled Labour (Socialists) had a majority (overall control) in our local Bristol Government.  Following a local election last year, Labour lost seats to the Green Party, so they are now in a coalition government with the Green Party (another politically left-wing party); the current political make-up of the Bristol local Government being:-

            •    Labour (Socialists) = 24 seats
            •    Greens (Left Wing Environmentalist) = 24 seats
            •    Conservatives (similar to your Republican party) = 14 seats
            •    Liberal Democrats (similar to your Democrats) = 8 seats

            36 seats required for an overall majority, hence the coalition between Labour and Greens.

            1. Readmikenow profile image96
              Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              "It just goes to show that attitudes in Bristol"

              It is obvious the attitude is one of mob rule.  Most societies left that type of governing many years ago.

              1. Nathanville profile image93
                Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                Yep, and without mob rule we would never have had democracy (Freedom, Justice and Liberty):-

                It was rebel Barons (through mob rule) who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215; the Magna Carta encapsulating the principles of Freedom, Justice and Liberty, and upon which the British and American Constitutions are based.

                It was mob rule when Parliament turned against the King in 1642, which led to the English Civil War (1642 – 1651) and the King being deposed; which followed 10 years of England being under a Dictatorship (Oliver Cromwell) before the Monarchy was returned to the Throne, but with reduced powers; the beginnings of Democracy.

                The Peasant’s Revolt of 1381, is another example of mob rule being for the good.  The Peasant’s Revolt being where the people rose up against the establishment and refused to pay the newly imposed ‘poll tax’; which led to the poll tax being abandoned.

                And again in 1990 Margaret Thatcher (then Conservative Prime Minister) tried to reintroduce the Poll Tax; which led to mob rule (protests, riots, civil disobedience) and the resignation of Margaret Thatcher in 1992, and the poll tax being abandoned; so mob rule does work, where law abiding peaceful demonstrations would not have worked.

                The introduction of the poll tax in 1990 led to mass civil disobedience with 88% of the British Adult population initially refusing to pay the new poll tax.  In spite of continued pressure and threats from the Government, 28% of the Adult Population where issued with summonses to appear in court; which clogged up the courts for years.  10 years later, the 4 million who had not yet been prosecuted had their summonses dropped, and their tax debt written off by the Government – ‘Power to the People’.

                1990: Chaos, Carnage & Bloodshed in Poll Tax Riots:  https://youtu.be/I4QQN2aqeKA

                Yep, Bristol Rule the Waves “Ship Shape and Bristol Fashion”.  Historically, Bristolians have never taken anything lying down; we always fight injustice where we see it.

                There’s always demonstrations and protests in Bristol every year; too many to list.  However, Bristol has also had more than its fair share of riots; a total of 11 since 1793 when the Bristol Local Government tried unsuccessfully to introduce a toll (charge) to residents for crossing ‘Bristol Bridge’; in that riot 11 people were killed and 45 injured, but the proposed bridge toll was cancelled.

                The latest riot in Bristol, in 2021, was in protest against the proposed Government Bill that would effectively make peaceful protests illegal and give the police extra powers to stop peaceful protests; an attack on democracy.

                'Kill the bill' protest in Bristol 2021: https://youtu.be/vl7zVmo_n9Y

                So yes, if you want your freedom, justice and liberty slowly eroded by the authorities then carry on protesting peacefully and lawfully.

      3. profile image69
        KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        No, that is what is expected from BLM and Antifa. It seems their intolerance to our Constitution make them fit the bill.

        But it does seem that you have your own agenda here and trying to get off topic. I WILL STAY on Topic.

        Have a good day.

  7. Stephen Tomkinson profile image91
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 23 months ago

    In fact, Nathanville, we need look no further than the American Declaration of Independence for a resounding justification of mob rule:
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it.." 
    The United States exists as an independent nation because of mob rule.

    1. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Here is the problem as I see it. There are those with our country who believe the mere existence of the U.S. Constitution is a direct threat violation of our Freedoms and Liberties. Which is why Antifa and BLM are embracing Marxism. Many on the Far right Hate what our Constitution is. They demand to see America in THER image. Which is the Marcist and Facist and WOKE who are trying to change are past history. Because they hate America that much.

      Which is all the more reason we need to FIGHT againt these Marxist Facist and WOKE  thugs. And we WILL Protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

      1. profile image69
        KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        I will correct myself. In my above comment I stated Far right. It meant to state "the far left".

      2. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        They are not Marxist, and FYI Fascism is 'right-wing' not left-wing; a common mistake made by many Americans.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

          I thought that everybody knew this, Arthur, but I guess that I was wrong....

          It is a deliberate misinterpretation by those with a certain agenda to redirect attention.

          1. Nathanville profile image93
            Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            I think you are right, it does seem to be "a deliberate misinterpretation by those with a certain agenda to redirect attention."

        2. Readmikenow profile image96
          Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          "Characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy"

          Right wing or left-wing Fascism is something that can occur from any wing.  It is a belief system.  This definition sounds more like people in the left wing of today more than any other political group.

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            More of that "deliberate misinterpretation" Mike? The Wikipedia article defined it correctly, where is the objective evidence that your reinterpretative definition is correct?

            1. Readmikenow profile image96
              Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              Where is the objective evidence that it is wrong?

              You do know that Antifa attacked Candace Owens at the University of Pennsylvania and tried to keep her from speaking?  That is just one of many incidences of Antifa being afraid of free speech.

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                You're going simple on me, Mike, I present encyclopedic sources to make my point and you return mere equivocation as an answer?

                I am not for interference with free speech regardless of who is speaking. I don't care for Owens nor her entourage as being no more than dupes on the GOP payroll.

          2. Nathanville profile image93
            Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            As Credence stated, Wikipedia correctly defines Fascism as right-wing.  What you are talking about "dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy" can either be a right-wing dictatorship like Hitler's rule during the second world war (fascism), or a left-wing dictatorship like China and Russia (Communism).

      3. profile image69
        KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        Sorry, but clearly it's the far left. The hate America.

      4. profile image69
        KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        And yes, Many of the Far left are Marxist.

        1. Nathanville profile image93
          Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          Excuser me, I am a socialist, and I know you're just slurring the facts, either out of ignorance or maliciously.  You're far more likely to get anarchists (which I despise) waving their flags in a left-wing protest or demonstration than you are Marxists.  And you certainly wouldn't get fascists in left-wing demonstrations because the left-wing despise fascists as much as you despise Marxists. 

          Left-wing protestors and fascists in the same demonstration is a recipe for violence as the sides clash.

          This is what happens when left-wing protestors and right-wing fascists meet:  Arrests after right-wing (fascists) and left-wing anti-fascist protesters clash - https://youtu.be/2TOrA3Mllh4

          1. profile image69
            KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            Careful what you call me, I don't take to being insulted. And I can complain to Hubpage Froum for you doing so.

          2. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            "the left-wing despise fascists"

            They simply ignore their own fascism.

            "Characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy"

            This fits the left-wing of today far more than any other political group.

            1. profile image69
              KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              You are correct in everything you just state. They would rather burn America to the ground along with our Constitution and rebuild it in the image of their our fascism. The Marxist Democrats just love that idea. The way you can tell is the don't deny it. Have you noticed that.

              1. Nathanville profile image93
                Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                Well you certainly wouldn't like European and British politics; by European standards the Democrats are quite right-wing for a left-wing party; Compared to the political spectrum in Europe the American Democrats would be a 'centralists' party (neither left nor right, but in the middle of the political spectrum).

            2. Nathanville profile image93
              Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              To repeat myself:-

              As Credence stated above:  Wikipedia correctly defines Fascism as right-wing. 

              What you are talking about "dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy" can either be a right-wing dictatorship like Hitler's rule during the second world war (fascism), or a left-wing dictatorship like China and Russia (Communism).

              FYI:  The British Labour Party (the political wing of the Trade Unions) is left-wing (Socialists); as I am left-wing (Socialist); but neither I nor the British Labour Party are dictatorial, and we do welcome opposition (democracy); albeit Socialists (the Labour Party included) do believe in the principles of Nationalisation, which I'm sure you don't, as I suspect you believe in Laissez-faire Governments.

    2. Nathanville profile image93
      Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Very true, and so does southern Ireland (The Republic of Ireland); they won their 'independence' from England through mob rule in the 1920's.

      Bloody Sunday 1920 (The Croke Park Massacre), Ireland; when 14 innocent Irish civilians (including two children and one woman) were murdered in a reprisal attack by the British Army at a football match.  https://youtu.be/s6jJlhUHRGk

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        I see how mob rule is quite a theme in Europe.  Makes sense why so many people left there and came to the United States.

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

          As if somehow, the United States was the panacea for the problems of Europe? Yeah, right...

        2. Nathanville profile image93
          Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          Yeah right; and I suppose the American war of Independence and the American Civil war wasn't 'mob rule'.

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            No, it was not.  It was a group of people who organized themselves to break free from a country who treated them poorly.  You do realize the Declaration of Independence was debated by representatives from all of the colonies?  It was far from mob rule.  When you say these things, it shows you really don't understand the concept of mob rule.

            1. Nathanville profile image93
              Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              And point taken, but it works both ways; the Bristol protesters who toppled the statue of the slave trader during the BLM protests were not a mob either - they were also fighting for a just cause. 

              what about the attack on the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. on the 6th Jan 2021 by over 2,000 of Trump supporters (right-wing); do you consider that to be mob rule?

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                Arthur, That was not an example of mob rule, but merely a field excursion gone awry. Anyway, that is what they will tell you.

                These rightwing types here are simply incorrigible from their basic foundation, up.

                1. Nathanville profile image93
                  Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  Yep smile

                2. Sharlee01 profile image79
                  Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  I so respect your levelheaded views. What are your thoughts about the US "summer of love".  By November 2020, 25 people had died in relation to the unrest.  However, arson, vandalism, and looting occurred and caused approximately $1–2 billion in damages nationally, the highest recorded damage from civil disorder. 

                  The protests although peaceful in the light of day, nightly for months turned huge and destructive.  The protest was headed up by leftists. We on the right were appalled at the violence and vandalism.

                  Our representatives including our Republican president called for peace and condemned the violence.

                  While the riot at the Capitol was unacceptable, and in my own view inexcusable -- did this bunch not have a cause.  As the summer of love, many that represent the left did not approve of the violence and destruction, many of us on the right were appalled at what occurred at our Capitol on Jan 6th. 

                  Is it fair to say  "These rightwing types here are simply incorrigible from their basic foundation, up."

                  Could one say the same thing about far-left extremists?

                  No reply is needed, just making a point. Both sides have rioted, and both sides felt they have some form of cause.  One could rip apart both sides' causes. 

                  I can truely say I did not agree with either side to violently protest. I don't think violence and destruction specks to fix any problem/cause.

                  1. Credence2 profile image78
                    Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    You are always deserving of a reply and I will not deny that solely because we disagree.

                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020– … ial_unrest

                    15 to 25 million participated in the 2020 protests and riots over an entire Summer, relative to that only 25 lost their lives.

                    How many mere thousands were involved on January 6, 2021 compared with 5 lives lost over a period of 1 day?

                    I still say that we, as a society have had more than just a handful of riots throughout our history,  but January 6th was the first time the rabble dare assualt the Capitol itself, with an expressed goal of preventing our representatives from carrying out Constitutionally prescribed directives as to the tally of Electoral votes. That is going low below anything else.

                    With a clear and evident "rightwing" bent, they, smearing excrement on walls, stealing property and damaging the facilities was a lot to have accomplished over a matter of hours and not months. Unlike other riots and protests, they threatened the very foundation of democracy, itself.

                    Just my opinion.....

                3. GA Anderson profile image87
                  GA Andersonposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  Yep, deplorables, all of them.

                  GA

        3. profile image69
          KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          BLM and Antifa just love mob rule. It called burning looting and other forms of mayhem. That their fascist ways of going thing . Some ofhe leaders of BLM admitts being trained in Marxism. And you know they spewed and trained other in the Marxism. Their hate for America and the Constitution is very clear to me.

          1. Nathanville profile image93
            Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            I'm just grateful that the right-wing in Europe and Britain are far more civil and respectful that the right-wing supporters in America.

            1. Readmikenow profile image96
              Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              It's actually the left-wing in the United States responsible for most of the violence.  They are the ones who are against law and order.  They are the ones who burn down cities and more.

              1. Nathanville profile image93
                Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                I was actually talking about politics rather than demonstrations in my above comment e.g. the sheer loathing (strength) of ill feelings between Republican and Democratic supporters and politicians in the USA beggars belief.  In contrast we just don’t get that same level of loathing between Socialist (Labour) and Capitalists (Conservative) between neither the politicians nor their supporters – thank goodness - it’s far more civilised here in Britain.

                Anyway, getting onto the point you raise; granted there may well be more left-wing demonstrations than right-wing demonstrations in the USA – that is something I haven’t looked into.  However, there are right-wing protests, and they can be violent too.  Although it’s interesting that statistically the USA police are three times as likely to use force against left-wing protesters, even at peaceful demonstration. 

                This article makes for interesting reading:   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … -far-right

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  England has a history of civility that has always been lacking here.

                  1. Nathanville profile image93
                    Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    Yeah, that is the strong impression I get from these forums.

        4. profile image69
          KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          I've seen Antifa's work ing Europe. It's the same mob rule burning looting and mayhem. They do the same kind of mob rule as they do in the U.S.

          1. Nathanville profile image93
            Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            That sounds like fiction to me; I live hear in Europe and I don't see what you are claiming.

            1. profile image69
              KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              Few years back the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. Antifa was rioting in the street in Hamburg for three to four days in protest of the summit. I know for a fact it happened because I knew someone who worked their at the time. That's just one of many examples.

              1. profile image69
                KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                And the great thing about it was the local  police in Hamburg  wasted no time thumping the heads of the rioting Antifa there in Hamburg. They did not put up with Antifa BS. Unlike in the U.S. where police are forced by liberal mayors who hate America  to stand down and do nothing to protect the citizen in the cities.

                1. profile image69
                  KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  And further note, local news papers in Hamburg discribed the Antifa there in Hamburg at the time as LEFT WING EXTERMIST. Hummmm.

              2. Nathanville profile image93
                Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                Get your facts right, and call a spade a spade rather than trying to blame everything on Antifa.

                FYI around 170 organizations came together at the G20 Summit in Hamburg, but no mention of Antif; that’s not to say they didn’t take part, but if they did then they were just a small representation, and not to blame for everything.

                The protest included representatives from:-

                •    Both of Germany's main opposition parties, the socialist Left party and the Green party
                •    The trade unions Verdi and IG Metall
                •    A variety of regional peace organizations, as well as a number of other organizations somewhat further to the left, including the German Communist Party (DKP) and the International Socialist Organization (ISO).
                •    The Autonomous Revolutionary Nordic Alliance (ARNA)
                •    Greenpeace
                •    Campact
                •    BUND
                •    Oxfam
                •    Various different international NGOs, left-wing political parties, think tanks and trade unions.
                •    Attac (an international protest group founded in France) which stands for Taxation of financial Transactions and Citizen's Action, but they also campaigns a number of other topics surrounding growing inequality and poverty around the world, including the overexploitation of the Earth's resources.
                •    Hamburg football club FC St. Pauli, and
                •    Local Hamburg churches, including Johanniskirche in the Altona-Ost district of Hamburg

                https://www.dw.com/en/whos-who-in-hambu … a-39495922

              3. profile image69
                KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                I did state facts.  I even watch the rioting by Antifa in Hamburg live on T.V as it was happening which is why I had some concern for the person I knew who worked there.

                But I play you game for a moment. Tell me who was doing all the rioting in Hamburg. The local media there at the time blamed Antifa. ( And I believe them) So you tell me who was doing the rioting?

                1. Nathanville profile image93
                  Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  I gave a comprehensive list of the various organisations that took part in the protests, none of which mentions Antifa; Hamburg vom Netz nehmen (a Hamburg group) claimed responsibility for some of the violence; and the Wikipedia article on the 2017 G20 Hamburg summit suggests it was the ‘left-wing extremists’ responsible for the violence (no Mention of Antifa in that Wikipedia article); and if you look at the Wikipedia article on ‘left-wing Extremisms) there is no mention of Antifa in that article either.  So I’ve got no evidence that Antifa were involved, and if they were then they only played a very minor part in it. 

                  So why are you so intent in pinning the blame on Antifa rather than the left-wing extremists in general; what is your hidden agenda e.g. to try to discredit Antifa because they have different politics to you?

                  So in answer to your question; ‘Left-Wing Extremists’ did all the rioting; see the Wikipedia articles below:

                  •    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_G20_ … _and_riots
                  •    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics

              4. profile image69
                KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                I have also noted that you never admitted any of the violence commited by Antifa. None of them. Why?

                1. Nathanville profile image93
                  Nathanvilleposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  Well it shows that you haven’t paid much attention to what I’ve written in this forum.  FYI in this forum I previously wrote this comment copied below:-

                  •    This is what happens when left-wing protestors and right-wing fascists meet:  Arrests after right-wing (fascists) and left-wing anti-fascist protesters clash - https://youtu.be/2TOrA3Mllh4

                  I’m not denying that Antifa may be involved in some violence, but I am not blaming them for everything as you do.

                  According to the CSIS when Antifa clash with far-right demonstrators, violence tends to ensue, which is no great surprise as Antifa stands for ‘Anti-fascists’ – as the above video demonstrates.

                  Also, a recent report by the CSIS highlights the fact that a recent threat assessment conducted by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicate that Antifa poses a relatively small threat in the United States, particularly compared to violent white supremacists and anti-government extremists such as militia groups.

                  1. profile image69
                    KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    First Antifa ARE FASCIST regardless of what you say.

                    Second, It's the top level of DHS FBI CIA other Marxist Democrats in our government who protect Marxist Antifa and BLM nthugs. They all hate our country and Constitution. They are all POS.

                    I'm done with you.

    3. abwilliams profile image67
      abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Actually it was only about 40%, the rest were loyal to the crown or indifferent.

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago

    Positive benefits of The Constitution:

    1. Forming a more perfect union.
    2. Establishing justice.
    3. Ensuring domestic tranquility.
    4. Providing for the common defense.
    5. Promoting the general welfare.
    6. Securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

    1. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      A great list indeed

  9. profile image69
    KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

    For once I agree with you.

  10. GoldenRod LM profile image96
    GoldenRod LMposted 23 months ago

    He speaks the truth. I have a connection with England due to heritage. But I still love the culture. Brits are a great group. Period. Full stop.

  11. profile image69
    KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

    I would still like to know if anybody out there believes or don't believe our Constitution is still being protected. Because I sure don't believe it.

  12. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months ago

    Here in America we need 2 functioning political parties to survive as a democracy.  In my opinion we are increasingly in peril due to the Republican party splintering into a conspiracy-laden authoritarian leaning group.
    Also, instead of engaging in the exercise of governance, the GOP has chosen a strategy of obstruction rather than participation in the legislative process and for condoning reprehensible conduct among its congressional caucus. Leader McCarthy has elevated the most extreme voices of the party while continuing to spread the big lie.
    It feels as if the party  continues to ramp up the fanning of  the flames of hatred, violence and division. Will the party return to its roots?  It's hard to say, the more traditional, rational members are being cast out of the party, labeled RINOS.
    I'm hopeful that out of the fracturing of the GOP, a new party will form.

    George Washington’s farewell address is often remembered for its warning against hyper-partisanship: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” John Adams, Washington’s successor, similarly worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.”

    America has now become that dreaded divided republic. The existential menace is as foretold, and it is breaking the system of government the Founders put in place with the Constitution.
    It's the 2 party system that will  break the constitution.

  13. abwilliams profile image67
    abwilliamsposted 23 months ago

    Nice try.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      What is your point?

  14. abwilliams profile image67
    abwilliamsposted 23 months ago

    I am blaming ignorance and the unbridled support of a particular political party and the ideology which has overtaken that particular party OVER common sense, values, education and all of the things which truly matter.

  15. abwilliams profile image67
    abwilliamsposted 23 months ago

    The separation was all about not placing or having, a particular church/religion, such as was the case with the Church of England. Many immigrants fled for that reason alone; the freedom to worship as they so chose.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Just so.  The "state" may not force any religion onto its citizens.  Not Islam, not Buddhism, not Wicca and not Christianity.

      1. abwilliams profile image67
        abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        Right, but that doesn't exclude the fact that America's founders were predominantly Christian. Some were more outspoken than others on the subject of teaching the Bible in school. They never sought to omit God from the classroom or from Congress. But many people over many decades have attempted to hide that fact.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          Nor does the fact that some of America's founders were predominately Christian have anything to do with anything.  Denying government any right to a state sponsored religion is a very strange way of "not" excluding God from the classroom.

          You cannot have it both ways; either those same founders excluded their God, along with all others, or they did not.  They did when they disallowed the state from promoting any religion.

          1. abwilliams profile image67
            abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            This Country was founded on Godly principles. The Holy Bible was the catalyst for the specific words chosen for the Declaration of Independence. Scripture is intertwined, (some may say entwined) throughout this document. That's a fact.

            The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof...simply means that there shall be no established 'Church of America' as was the case in England with the Church of England.

            The Founders never excluded God from their lives, nor from this Country.

            I have never said that God should be forced on anyone, you are free to accept or deny God/Christ or become a Buddhist, whatever! But, the fact remains that the United States of America was founded on Godly biblical principles and there is no reason that should not be taught to American children.

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

              "I have never said that God should be forced on anyone, you are free to accept or deny God/Christ or become a Buddhist, whatever! But, the fact remains that the United States of America was founded on Godly biblical principles and there is no reason that should not be taught to American children."

              Fine, AB, as long as it is taught clinically as an objective fact of history and not as a sermon from a pulpit.

              1. abwilliams profile image67
                abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                I completely agree, no argument from me.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  I should clarify, " founded on Godly principles" from the standpoint of wealthy white men.

                  That can be taught as it was true to the extend that was what the Fathers believed, just and 2 and 2 is 4. But there can not be even
                  the whiff of advocacy or "establishment" evident in the classroom instruction.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image87
                    GA Andersonposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    The standpoint of "wealthy white men"?

                    Geez Louise Cred. The race card in a discussion about Jesus' "godly principles"?

                    You should take a chill pill.

                    GA

              2. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                And, I might add, as long as other competing religious beliefs are taught right along with it, as a comparison where none are proven fact and all are opinion only.

                Of course that means that those "comparative religion classes" can only be taught in the upper grades as young children are incapable of understand what is being taught.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  I can agree wholeheartedly with you on your comment, Wilderness.

                2. abwilliams profile image67
                  abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  I have no problem with other religions being taught, as well, as long as the manner in which the U.S.A. was founded, doesn't fall victim to revisionists and/or woke history.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, let's see.  Many early immigrants were prisoners; Jamestown Landing was founded as a penal colony.  Those in the north were often running from Christian persecution...whereupon they created their own church and persecuted (heavily, often to death) anyone that didn't follow their rules.

                    Later on, our founding fathers recognized the extreme control religions exert over anyone they can and forbid any form of State run religion.  This was done primarily to allow different religions to operate at the same time, without bowing to a government religion. 

                    Will you teach these things as well?  Will you teach that many of those founding fathers were not Christian at all, but "Deists" that rejected Christianity in favor of their own concepts of the universe?  Will you teach that many (or most) of our laws came from European law, not the bible?
                    Or would you ignore such things and simply insist that we were created a Christian Nation?

                    I recall a few years ago where I read of a school providing bibles for the children (grade school).  One mother, a follower of Wicca, didn't like the idea and objected.  It was explained that there was a box of bibles at the entrance to the school and kids could take one or not.  She brought in a box of Wiccan spell books to set there as well...whereupon the policy was immediately changed and no books were allowed.  This is the kind of "teaching all religions" we most often see: teach them all, until one comes along that isn't mine.  It is also an excellent example of just why our founding fathers denied any possibility of a State run religion.

                    https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/the-untol … o-america/

            2. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              "Godly biblical principles and there is no reason that should not be taught to American children."

              And whose Bible should be used for this? Whose book of scripture?  Wouldn't teachers be indoctrinating students who aren't Christian??

              1. abwilliams profile image67
                abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                By "whose bible" do you mean which versions of the Holy Bible? Thomas Jefferson utilized the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible, when penning the Declaration of Independence, which as you know, is a vital part of our history.
                Teach it, don't preach it!

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  What happens when you have non Christian children in the classroom? Again isn't that indoctrination?  I'm not sure all parents want their children subject to your version of the Bible.

                2. tsmog profile image84
                  tsmogposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  I thought he used the Jefferson Bible, which he created as a diest.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image87
                    GA Andersonposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    Jefferson didn't think of it as a bible.  The History Channel did a documentary about it. Talk about ;cut & paste . . . '

                    GA

                  2. abwilliams profile image67
                    abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    From what I understand he pieced together scripture from the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible. I too have heard some refer to Jefferson as a diest.
                    Jefferson did tell us {we the people} to question with Boldness, even the existence of God.

            3. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
              Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              In fact, the framers knew that morals were necessary in protecting the freedom of democracies.

              What are morals based on? Common sense?
              No. On religion, which teaches the principles of spirituality and the importance of devotion to God.

              However, very often, to doubt God, is to search for God. 
              After all, where do we find God? In the superficial practices of religion?
              Or in the deep faith revealed by teachers, leaders, avatars, and the saints of all religions?

            4. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

              If teaching our children that the Christian god exists, as proclaimed in their scripture, isn't an "establishment of religion", and [i]only[/] the Christian one, then you don't understand what the words mean.

  16. profile image69
    KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

    I 100% agree

  17. Stephen Tomkinson profile image91
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 23 months ago

    Sharlee points out that being able to vote makes America great. She may well be right, but every democracy allows its citizens to vote. The problem, I think, is that the waters are getting so muddy that we can no longer be sure what we are voting for. Discussion is being lost to diatribe and debate is no more than a slanging match.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Worse than that, politicians campaign on outright lies of the stolen 2020 election because It's okay for people to have a different "sense of reality". We've completely blurred the line between truth and lie,  reality and fantasy.

      1. abwilliams profile image67
        abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        I will never be convinced that the election wasn't stolen.
        Especially with all of the evidence coming out of Arizona currently, for one.
        But also, in Georgia. On the night of the election there was video evidence of ballots being brought out (from under a table) after everyone was sent home. Try to find that video now!
        The more MSM and the left tell me that there's nothing to see, the harder I will look.

      2. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        "We've completely blurred the line between truth and lie,  reality and fantasy."

        Too true - we have decided that a mere perception of what reality is shall determine what is real.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image79
      Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I really do feel it is a privilege to vote. There are some countries where women can't vote. I think it is a task to really get to know candidates.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        100% agree

  18. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months ago

    I think Democrats have done very little to speak up about the outrageous speech heard by some Republicans today.
    This speech has gone viral. Kudos to this state rep.  Republicans really are running on this type of platform these midterms.

    https://twitter.com/MalloryMcMorrow/sta … M929iuzrSg

    https://thehill.com/news/state-watch/32 … -wont-win/

  19. Stephen Tomkinson profile image91
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 23 months ago

    Yes, The founders were predominantly Christian, true. There were few other alternatives. However, Enlightenment thought was having its effect and many of them would have described themselves as Deists. Doubts were creeping in.

    1. abwilliams profile image67
      abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Hmmm, few other alternatives. I find that statement very intriguing.

  20. abwilliams profile image67
    abwilliamsposted 23 months ago

    If you are condoning the type of behavior I have just described then yes, you are indeed from a different culture entirely.
    That we can agree on!

  21. Stephen Tomkinson profile image91
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 23 months ago

    Credence, is the answer to your rhetorical question possibly that it is much easier to control a society when all members adhere to the same creed?

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      You and Faye both allude to some pretty scary stuff, a foundation for authoritarianism replacing democracy.

      Yet in the face of all of this, we mistakenly sit around thinking that our difference are merely political... this is just a sample of how far beyond the adversaries are willing to go,

  22. profile image69
    KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

    Sharlee01, I agree with your most recent comment. However, It's Obama who started the divide in America when he would often play the race card in the White Hoause and embraced the racist thugs BLM when he invited them to the WH for a lunch and a mini summent. The throwing police officers under the bus. Therefore giving BLM the green light to kill and injure police on a whim. Accusing all police of being racist. When in fact Obama and BLM are the true racist. That truely started the divide in America.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      That's an interesting opinion.
      Do you have any links that may back this up? Or this is just your feeling? 
      I'm not sure where you come from but where I come from It didn't sit right with a lot of folks that there was a black man in the oval office and they were vocal about it.  In my opinion, that's where the divide kicked off.

  23. profile image69
    KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

    When Obama was first elected I was very happy about it, But at the time I was unaware of this racist beliefs. I was of the opinion that, as a Democrat he would be no different other Democrats in the past. Man was I wrong. With 9 months he played his first race card on the America people regarding a incident involving two police officers and a Black man. Why Obama inserted himself into the situation from the WH is accusing the two officers of being racist in the incident. From that point on I lost all repect I had for that POS.

  24. profile image69
    KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

    Thank you Elon Musk for Freedom of Speech come back.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image79
      Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      oh yeah!

    2. abwilliams profile image67
      abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Woop Woop! smile

    3. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Are you promoting any sort of moderation on Twitter at all? Anyone who'd like to tweet disinformation should be allowed to do so?
      I believe that many followers of Mr Trump feel they were wrongly targeted on Twitter because they were tweeting disinformation about the election and also covid. These tweets most often  had warning labels applied to them.  Some users were banned from the platform for outrageous tweets such as Alex Jones and his shameless assertions about Sandy Hook.  Where do you draw the line.
      It will be interesting to see if there is a renewed interest in repealing section 230 that  provides platforms like Twitter with liability protection for most content posted by users.

      1. abwilliams profile image67
        abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        I'm not a fortune teller nor mind reader nor confidant, but from what I can gather from this short but sweet post - KC is thankful for "Freedom of Speech" at Twitter.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          Do you think it was ever limited though, wrongly so?

          1. abwilliams profile image67
            abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            Twitter has banned many conservatives and conservative groups. They even banned the President of the United States!
            I have, personally, had my speech fact-checked, buried, deleted, revised, reported, on Twitter, FB and, even here at HP, a while back. But, I am so hard-headed, I refuse to heed the warnings. wink You can check me 10+ years writing here, I am unapologetically conservative, that's the extent of my 'crimes'.

      2. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        Riiiiiiight.  Twitter has such high standards for the truth they provide unimpeded informational platforms for some of the most notorious people in the world.

        Louis Farrakhan
        Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
        Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro
        Russia's Vladimir Putin

        This is just a few of the more interesting people who have NOT had their twitter accounts taken from them.

        Can you say "Hypocrisy?"

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          So you would also be in favor  weaker moderation of content all around?  So far no research has ever suggested that Republicans have been disadvantaged on social media platforms.

          Even the courts have weighed in, A federal appeals court has rejected a lawsuit that claimed Twitter, Facebook, Google and Apple conspire to suppress conservative viewpoints in 2019.

          Interestingly Mr. Trump reacted strongly stating that the government may need to “strongly regulate” social media platforms or even “close them down.”  now there's an idea.

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre … als-court/

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            How about equal moderation?

            JP puts the libs and Twitter into perfect perspective.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T0BQl_zzCE

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              I would venture to say that moderation was already equal under the algorithm. So How do you handle one group of people that more often has their tweets flagged due to disinformation? How is this unfairly targeting? 
              But I did get a good laugh out of the video lol

              1. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                "moderation was already equal under the algorithm"

                Couldn't disagree with you more.  Do you know who Louis Farrakhan is?  Do you have any idea the hateful, anti-semitic nonsense he spews forth on a daily basis?  Where is this "moderation algorithm" with him?  How does it work with some of the world's worst dictators such as Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Russia's Vladimir Putin?

                Talk about providing misinformation...geeeze...these guys are crazy. 

                So, I agree the algorithm needs to be changed. 

                When some of the world's worst dictators are not silenced but American citizens are...there is something wrong.

  25. profile image69
    KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

    biden and the rest of the Marxist Democrats are the greatest threat to the United States and to our Constitution.

  26. profile image69
    KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

    Disinformation is the same thing as liberal fake news media. It's the Liberals/Democrats who think they get to decide what is"disinformation". So where do they get to decide, for the rest of the American people, what is and what isn't disinformation. I'll be damned if I will be told what to believe or not. NO ONE IS GOING TO DECIDE FOR ME. Democrats can take their "Disinfomation BS " and shove it up their ass.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      So Twitter should be a free-for-all basically? And I'm not specifically talking about conservative versus liberal. Anyone should be able to tweet anything they like on Twitter?
      The tweets of Alex Jones should have stood?

      1. Sharlee01 profile image79
        Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

        It is very clear you do not frequent Twitter or you would know what goes no on there. To put it very simply conservatives were und=fairly targeted, tweets removed at random, and banned for no reason. Why are some afraid of opposing views?  We all have the right to read a comment or tweet and take away what we choose to.

        It's insulting to feel a biased moderator remove a tweet just because it does not meet the ideology of the left?

        It seems to terrify many that we on the right will have a forum where we can share our views, post, and discuss current news about anyone that is making news. The left media and social media blocks news they feel is objectable.  That suppresses free speech. 

        We on the right are feeling a form of victory today, celebrating real a win in our quest to be heard.   Musk is championing free speech, not just one-sided speech. 

        Just a thought ---  He has not shared plans for what he might find inappropriate. Perhaps those that are concerned should wait and see if there is anything to be concerned about.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          I believe that it was Twitter's stated policy in relation to covid and election disinformatiom that led to tweets being tagged or deleted.  They did have a clear policy and it was within their right. Tweets are removed by the algorithm.   That policy would have obviously affected many more of Mr. Trump's base as they were tweeting such things. I do think that tweeting lies is objectionable.  And we have infinite examples of that from Twitter.  In my opinion it feels irresponsible to have little to no moderation but that may not be Mr. Musk's intention. There are consequences to disinformation. I don't think it helps society in general to share and promote lies on social media. I don't care who does it.  Social media has certainly contributed to the fact that we have many Americans who to this day believe the 2020 election was rigged and stolen.
          Aside from Elon Musk proclaiming himself for free speech absolutist do you agree with his politics otherwise?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image79
            Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            Faye, you have a perfect right to your opinion. Got it.

            "Aside from Elon Musk proclaiming himself for free speech absolutist do you agree with his politics otherwise?"

            I am not aware of all his political views, some I totally agree with some I do not. 

            I feel he is an originalist when it comes to politics.  He is a very unusual individualist. He follows no straight path or doe he abid groupthink. I have found he does not share his view on some hotbed political subjects.

            I find he thinks carefully about how he responds when talking about politics. I feel he values his own opinions so much that he does not open up to debating them. But, he will attack a subject he feels strongly about and will go after a person one day for something he disagrees with, and the next day support that same person's opinion the next day. 

            He strongly believes in some aspects of socialism and is against some of what it stands for.

            So, I can honestly say he is my view is unique and wired differently than most human beings. I think he has an abundance of common sense, and that common sense spills into his political views.

            Were or are you concerned about the politics of others that developed and are running other social media sites or search engines? Such as those that make the decisions at Google?

        2. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          Alex Jones was a good example to pick. I don't know many of the details of his various claims, so I can comment without needing to know what I am talking about. (meaning I can focus on the concept first, rather than the details.

          My media-fueled perception is that he was seriously Far-right, and promoted serious conspiracy theories. Either seriously 'deep statish', or seriously incredulous. Plus, some that were seriously offensive, (Sandy Hook?). And, he had a large number of followers, of which another large number can be described as 'true believers'.

          Did Jones' tweets break any laws?  I have the impression they were bad-to-seriously bad, but I don't know if he broke any laws, and that would matter to me. Do you know?

          Did any of the tweets specifically and provably incite something that caused injury? Again, I don't know, do you? *that can probably only be a subjective answer.

          Then, does the number of subscribers figure into the decision? Is the subjective determination of misinformation influenced by that number, would the judged misinformation of a tweet with 1 subscriber go in the same bucket as one with 10 million?

          All that fluff just to set the stage

          If the tweets were not illegal, and if they can't be objectively proven to have incited harm, (causing offense or painful emotions are not an actionable harm—relative to 3rd-party moderation), then let the tweets stay. None of us have a right to make such subjective judgments to cause actions on others—outside of our various 'due process' governmental authorities.

          That's my black and white view. My gray view is that Jones' tweets, (some, many, most?), probably should have some type of moderation, but not banning.

          We can't fix stupid. We can try to help the gullible with information, but isolating them from the problem is not the right solution. We certainly can't protect the emotionally vulnerable, (i.e. cult believers), by isolating them.

          So who does that leave for the moderation to protect? The average folks that are just wrong? Or the average folks that we just think are wrong? If those folks don't fit any of the previous listings and fit the "average," (common-sense wise, (yep, I know)), then they should be able to protect themselves.

          Where is the line that justifies banning? I counting on Musk to have a plan for the type of moderating needed for examples like Jones.

          GA

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            Well Jones has been convicted in four defamation cases so far for his spreading of Sandy Hook conspiracy theories.  He will have to pay large sums of money to these families.  He was eventually banned  by Twitter, They cited abusive behavior but it took quite a long time for this to happen. He flourished on the platform off of this tragedy.  He went unchecked for quite a long time claiming the murder of  20 children under the age of 7 and 6 adults was a hoax, staged with  actors.
            He has previously said that "transgenderism" is a CIA "plan to depopulate humanity" and that the "normalisation of mental illness" is an "evil pedophile plot to sexualize and destroy children"
            In 2013, he described then-President Barack Obama as the "global head of al-Qaeda", and later accused him of arming ISIS.

            Yes, there has to be a plan for banning people such as this. Sadly, Alex Jones is just a drop in the bucket on Twitter. There are so many more looking to replicate his "success"  peddling outrageous conspiracy theories.  Yes, we can't fix stupid but these theories actually led to people harassing the Sandy Hook families for years. Lies have consequences in real life sometimes. This mix of  of false information, hate-mongering and conspiracy theories often leads  to real responses, real action. We saw this all too clearly on January 6th also.
            I am hoping Mr Musk has a plan for such people.

            1. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              Me too, because I don't like bannings.

              GA

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image69
        Miebakagh57posted 23 months agoin reply to this

        Makes much sense, generally.

    2. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

      I agree, provided it's within the law and not used for criminal acts.

    3. Sharlee01 profile image79
      Sharlee01posted 23 months ago

      To quote Elon Musk

      April 26, 2022 --- 
      Elon Musk
      @elonmusk
      The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all

      April 26, 2022 "By 'free speech, I simply mean that which matches the law," Musk tweeted. "If people want LESS  free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people."

      So wonderfully sensible... So, who will be contacting their Congressional
      repressentatives?

    4. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

      Elon Musk has done a great service for the American people and Free Speech

      And to think, there are Marxist liberalDemocrats low lifes out there who are upset about it.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        I take exception to your categorization of Democrats as Marxist and liberal.   They're not the same thing.
        Marxism is fundamentally based on a critique of liberalism.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          From each according to their ability to pay, to each according to their needs.  Is that not the liberal economic concept?  Take from those that have more and give it to those that have less?

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
            Miebakagh57posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            wilderness, very well spoken. My question then is, are you a pastor, or when d'you become one? Lol!

      2. Sharlee01 profile image79
        Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

        It would seem the "playground" is now open for all to share. I must wonder how having an open free speech forum will affect our upcoming elections.

    5. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

      I think it's great watching the Marxist Left in a panic over Elon Musk buying of Twitter.

      The Marxist Left don't like the idea that all opinions on Twitter will now be treated as equals and not slanted towards the Marxist Left.

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        I'm shocked over this treatment of Elon Musk by the left.  He is, after all, an African American. Do their prejudices know no boundaries?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image79
          Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

          They are acting like spoiled brats that don't want to share the playground.

          Unfortunately, hopefully, they pick up their marbles and leave. Works out well for those that want free speech.

        2. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          What treatment? Wondering if and what type of moderation will be used on Twitter? Debating the need to at least have policy
          on  warnings on some types of speech? I don't think that's prejudicial.  Some of the speech on Twitter has lead to real consequences for real people in the world. Such as Alex Jones conspiratorial tweets that led to Sandy Hook parents being tormented for years.

          1. abwilliams profile image67
            abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            Faye, the majority of individuals take what Alex Jones has to say, with a grain of salt, as is the case with Louis Farrakhan (Mike mentioned him earlier) They are fringe, they are sensationalists, ignored and dismissed by most, not mentioned repeatedly - in hopes they will eventually fade away...

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              These people should be given a platform, a megaphone to disseminate lies? Lies that are eventually picked up by those in society who don't take it "with a grain of salt" and act upon those lies in the real world? Remember the "Pizzagate" shooting?
              The shooter claimed he was attempting to find and rescue child sex slaves that he believed were being held at the restaurant. a belief allegedly based on his reading of a false story circulating online.
              In terms of covid deaths,  many credible studies show lives lost due to misinformation / disinformation.
              I do believe there needs to be some attempt to weed out blatant disinformation.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                The problem, of course, is that it is only "blatant disinformation" to those that don't believe it.  If they do believe it then the same tale is reality, true and factual.

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  The problem is, there are facts.  We have realities that are based on fact and perception doesn't change that.  I think our society would devolve into a state of chaos if we lose a sense of shared reality based on fact.  I don't think it offers much to society if we have a social media platform that for instance allows tweets to flourish claiming  that the immigrants at the border are actors in a false flag operation. I don't think it helps society if we let self-proclaimed experts advance the idea that gargling bleach cures covid (And that was an actual tweet) I mean I suppose you could say at a certain point let natural  selection take its course.  Is that your position?

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    "The problem is, there are facts.  We have realities that are based on fact and perception doesn't change that."

                    While I actually agree with that statement
                    let me give you a few "facts" that have been bandied about:

                    Trump colluded with Putin
                    Trump incited an insurrection to overthrow the government...using a fire extinguisher and a flagpole.
                    Global warming will flood coastal cities by 2025
                    Biden did not cause inflation
                    It is common for abortions to happen just before birth
                    Guns are the cause of violence in our nation

                    I could go on forever, but all of these are touted as "fact".  Personally I find them total fabrications, but that does not mean that I feel the censorship of anything I don't like and believe is the correct response, which is exactly what you are espousing.

                    (Yes, if someone is stupid enough to gargle bleach, thinking it will cure COVID, let them.  It will improve the gene pool.)

              2. abwilliams profile image67
                abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                I don't remember Pizzagate, but I do remember "Russian collusion", those whom wanted to believe it believed it, we can't do anything about the gullible, we have to co-exist the best we can.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image79
                  Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  Not to mention the two ridiculous impeachments. Funny no one here will touch on the discussion of Hunter Biden's investigation. As we could not bring his name up on twitter.

                  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    This is not true. I just logged on Twitter and my analytics told me that there were over 3,000 tweets in the last hour mentioning Hunter Biden as well as a multitude of hashtags. Including #hunterbiden #hunterbidenslaptop and accounts such as Hunter Biden's crack pipe, Hunter biding  my time and many, many more.

                    1. abwilliams profile image67
                      abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                      Yeah, Now! lol

                    2. Sharlee01 profile image79
                      Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                      I should have added more to my comment ---  I was referring to before the 2020 election. in regard to Hunter's posts on Twitter. It looks like he now is open game as of late. 
                      https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/15/twitter … e-fec.html

                      I would assume many are feeling emboldened to post what they could not post in 2020.

                      Oct 2020
                      Twitter Still Blocking a NY Post Story Based on Alleged Hunter Biden Emails, Newspaper’s Account Remains Frozen
                      https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/t … 234808416/

                      I can share my own experience when I tried to bring up Hunter in tweets, they were not allowed. My tweets were about news reports, not his pron photos or his personal life. Just what I was seeing in the news.

              3. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                "These people should be given a platform, a megaphone to disseminate lies? Lies that are eventually picked up by those in society who don't take it "with a grain of salt" and act upon those lies in the real world?"

                Seems like it was okay with dictators and a black nationalist like Louis Farrakhan.

                So, if these guys can have a platform, why would anyone care who else has a platform?

          2. Sharlee01 profile image79
            Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            You seem to be ruminating on "jones" Do you know how many users Twitter has? Do you realize how many conservative views were removed daily?

            It seems you don't frequent Twitter.  The site promotes Left insulting right. It is a disgusting site that promotes left-hanging right.

            Bullying, the insulting is what they support.  And it is very much one-sided.

            The right will now have a voice. We do not know what will be blocked. I won't assume Musk will allow all...  Maybe the left should stop panicking, and wait to see what the new forum is like. I know most left live on "what if"... But why no  "let's wait and see"?

            The left is projecting  -- to borrow ECO's favorite word.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              I'm just using him as an example. I don't want to overload a post with examples of tweets. He just happens to be one of the most heinous. Again, Twitter had algorithm that removed posts that violated their written policy regardless of who wrote it. I could find the exact wording of the policy but it had to do with primarily disinformation about covid and the election.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image79
                Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                I have read his derogatory tweets. I dismissed them as hyperbolic crazy...

                You or I have no idea what algorithms Musk will employ or not employ.  You are presuming, and this seems unfair.

                If he gives you something to be upset about, you will have plenty of opportunities to offer your examples of what you feel is objectable.

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  Oh but I'm not presuming anything. I haven't even presumed anything about Mr Musk other than his stated opinions of being a free speech absolutist.
                  My problem is that many people follow Mr Jones and a slew of others who are just like him. They have followers in the millions and just in the case of Mr Jones his followers acted in real life on the lies that were being tweeted. That is my problem. It took Twitter way too long to ban Jones and many others like him.  I would post many other tweets from a variety of tagged and banned users but I don't want to be considered a rabble rouser .

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image79
                    Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    "My problem is that many people follow Mr Jones and a slew of others who are just like him."

                    And you have every right to be concerned. Not sure your concerns will change anything but have at it.

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image79
                    Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    Again ---
                    You or I have no idea what algorithms Musk will employ or not employ.  You are presuming, and this seems unfair.

                    If he gives you something to be upset about, you will have plenty of opportunities to offer your examples of what you feel is objectable.

                    You did not address my comment, you just offered your concerns again about one user.

                  3. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                    We also see millions taking up the cause of BLM, and demanding the defunding of police.  Shouldn't they be banned as well?

          3. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            Musk has only owned twitter for a few days, and everyone is predicting horrible things. It makes me laugh.

            The left having control over free speech on twitter is what I find a horrible thing. 

            Now, the left if predicting Musk will act like them when it comes to shutting down free speech.

            To me, that is funny.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              I don't think anyone's predicting but wondering what may change and maybe allowed. It seems like a lot of posters here are read into comments.

    6. charleskikas profile image92
      charleskikasposted 23 months ago

      Nice...

    7. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

      That's the problem with the Marxist Left, their racist stupidity has no limits.

    8. abwilliams profile image67
      abwilliamsposted 23 months ago

      Things are changing for the better Faye.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        How is that exactly?

        1. abwilliams profile image67
          abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          I don't want the words you choose suppressed, any more than I want mine suppressed. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I would never intentionally work against you in using them. I will counter them, with every opportunity that I am given, but I will never demand that you not be allowed to express yourself, simply because we disagree on most things.

    9. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 23 months ago

      Very interesting information. Thank you.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)