Is the U.S. Constitution still being protected?
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?The Left has despised the Constitution since at least the times of Woodrow Wilson. Part of Progressive Ideology is to dismantle the Constitution.
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.
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.
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.
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/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.
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.Why were all these done against former President Trump, was all that I ask two years ago.
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!
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.
Thanks for the examples. I can see why people get angry about them. But do these actions actually run counter to the Constitution?
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.
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.
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.
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/fQOAlDKRQfwBLM 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.
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.
So in other words you support fascism and racism.
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.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."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.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.
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.
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.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.I will correct myself. In my above comment I stated Far right. It meant to state "the far left".
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
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.I think you are right, it does seem to be "a deliberate misinterpretation by those with a certain agenda to redirect attention."
"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.More of that "deliberate misinterpretation" Mike? The Wikipedia article defined it correctly, where is the objective evidence that your reinterpretative definition is correct?
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.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.
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).
Sorry, but clearly it's the far left. The hate America.
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/2TOrA3Mllh4Careful what you call me, I don't take to being insulted. And I can complain to Hubpage Froum for you doing so.
"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.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.
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).
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.
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/s6jJlhUHRGkI see how mob rule is quite a theme in Europe. Makes sense why so many people left there and came to the United States.
As if somehow, the United States was the panacea for the problems of Europe? Yeah, right...
Yeah right; and I suppose the American war of Independence and the American Civil war wasn't 'mob rule'.
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.
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?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.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.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....."How many mere thousands were involved on January 6, 2021, compared with 5 lives lost over a period of 1 day?"
Good point -- what came after, did this feared group go on to burn, loot, or even protest peacefully? Did this so-called well-organized bunch that's hoped to subvert the election regroup, and continue their quest? No, they did not...
"but January 6th was the first time the rabble dare assault the Capitol "
This should concern us all... The fact that we have people so dissatisfied that they would attract our Capitol. Perhaps this is scarier than the actual act.
"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."
In reality, the capital did take some damage, but the Congress within an hour were able did walk back into that building and do their job. The building was not burned down, it did not actually have much damage.
Our Democracy remained intact. No one returned in the following days to further this great cause you speak of.
However, we have two sides, and we on the right perhaps don't take to the streets, we will be very much heard, without the need to shout or climb on high horses or platforms --- we will vote.
Yes, some will be Trumpers some will be conservative Republicans' and some will be a newer breed of Republicans. I think all factions are composed of many different kinds of individuals. Not sure it is wise to blanket us all under one blanket. We appeal to all kinds of Americans at this point. I think the party has truely evolved into something very special. We represent old and new ideologies. A true break away somewhat we were. And we for once have fire in our gut."Did this so-called well-organized bunch that's hoped to subvert the election regroup, and continue their quest? No, they did not... "
Only because the members were sheltered and hidden, these were not rational people at any level.
--------------
"This should concern us all... The fact that we have people so dissatisfied that they would attract our Capitol. Perhaps this is scarier than the actual act."
With the rise of the Right winger I am dissatisfied as well, but I don't get to assault the Capitol in response.
----------------
"In reality, the capital did take some damage, but the Congress within an hour were able did walk back into that building and do their job. "
Yes, amongst piles of rubble that could not possibly be removed and cleaned in an hour.
---------------
You can bet that we, on the Left are going to vote as if our lives depended upon it. I dislike Biden somewhat as he is weak and acts like a Frat boy in the face of the clear and impending danger presented by the other side.
I think that it premature to say that your side appeals to all sort of Americans, the Republicans unlike the Democrats are basically a "white" political party, for the most part. And a big part of that is the maintaining of the status quo, and to large extent reversing what progress has been made. This just a little dated, but you get the idea......
https://news.gallup.com/poll/160373/dem … white.aspx"Only because the members were sheltered and hidden, these were not rational people at any level."
This is a given. Not sure they were sheltered, I will wait for a report, but so far they say they were a loosely connected group.
"With the rise of the Right winger I am dissatisfied as well, but I don't get to assault the Capitol in response."
This was a handful of people. The majority of Americans share your sentiment.
"Yes, amongst piles of rubble that could not possibly be removed and cleaned in an hour."
The congress was back in by 7pm continuing their business. I correct my statement.
"You can bet that we, on the Left are going to vote as if our lives depended upon it. I dislike Biden somewhat as he is weak and acts like a Frat boy in the face of the clear and impending danger presented by the other side."
I am confident Americans will vote in record numbers as they did in our last election, and the majority will win. This is how we continue our democracy. And for Biden, he is one president, and one will follow him, and one after that. We can always hope as we move along all will right itself.
And you might want to check again that the Republican Party is a party that only appeals to white people, you may want to do some research on that. Times are changing, and so is the Republican party.
Your article is very old. Here are a couple of 2022 articles you might like to view.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … -on-issues
Black Democrats See ‘Bleak’ 2022 as Biden Disappoints on Issues
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/opin … crats.html
https://www.newsweek.com/how-gop-can-ma … on-1689624
I feel these ar non-bias articlesYour links are good, but until Republicans address this below, they will always be the odd man out. While I am fundamentally more Left than my brethren and need more, correcting this Flaw would help the GOP with somewhat more politically moderate African American voters, than myself.
---------
"But the GOP will not earn more votes just by pointing out the ineptitude of the Democrats and their pernicious policies. Black and Hispanic voters already know the Democrats are taking them for granted; they just don't see the Republican Party presenting a viable alternative.
Republicans must focus on messaging—specifically, on showing these voters exactly what they bring to the table. They must show how getting government out of the way will empower people to flourish. Conservative leaders need to understand the problems each community faces and apply conservative solutions to those challenges."I agree, and this is why we hope to sweep in Nov. It would help us promote a promising American agenda just by having the sheer power of Congress to pass that agenda.
I am hoping we get a good Republican candidate that will offer a promising agenda that will be pleasing to the majority of Americans. Yes, they need to get past the blame game. But run on an agenda of moving the country forward --- jobs, education, healthcare, economy, and yes immigration. I am overall the social BS, I want to hear solid plans to make the lives of all Americans better. Pipedream, probably. But, these are the things Government is and should be responsible for.Which the Republicans explicitely denied Democrats, I will have to brace myself for troubling years ahead if they return to power.
Yes, we have witnessed this unfortunate problem for what seems like decades. However, moving forward we need to break this form of gridlock do we not?
If this phenomenon occurs I just hope the years are used wisely to pass legislation that will benefit all the people.
And come on could it be much worse than what we are seeing now?"And come on could it be much worse than what we are seeing now?"
Oh yes, much worse. Trump once asked our community when asking for our vote, " what do you have to lose". With his personal track record and the philosophy of his party, we could end up losing what little that remains to us within this GOP universe. Burning books is just the beginning.Did I miss something is Trump running? Could we handle that if it happens?
and for the record --- I felt Trump's "what do you have to lose" was insensitive, ignorant, well disrespectful of black people.Is not Trump the model of today's Republican Party? Check out his "mini me", Ron DeSantis here in Florida.
"and for the record --- I felt Trump's "what do you have to lose" was insensitive, ignorant, well disrespectful of black people."
As we consider most Republicans to have been and are, generally."As we consider most Republicans to have been and are, generally."
Guess my last few comments hit a nerve. Oh well...
Got it, and have a nice life.Republican politicians....
The Republican Party has virtually ignored and worked against our concerns for the last 50 years, what am I supposed to think?
What moderates you do have are RINO and condemned by the party.
This ain't personal, all of my neighbors are Republican, some flying that stupid Brandon flag from their flagpole. We simply avoid speaking about politics and instead talk about the weather.
What agenda?
Right now you have a Republican party that hasn't seen a culture war they didn't want to wage. They are more and more extreme.
Ron DeSantis has single-handedly struck down 50% of the math books today chosen for use in Florida because they somehow relate to critical race theory?! He has enacted a new parental involvement in student education but in terms of the math books, he refused to list the specific books or publishers that were struck down. How is this being accountable to parents? He essentially has a mini autocracy going there in Florida.
On another front, Ronna Romney McDaniel has proclaimed that Republicans won't take part in debates? Claiming "bias" They are taking their ball and going home! Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell isn’t even trying to pretend the GOP has any new ideas.
Republicans’ strategy in 2022 boils down to: "Democrats are bad."
Republicans are still holding on to a warped sense of reality in terms of the 2020 election was "stolen"
What is at the heart of the GOP these days? It seems like absolute, utter nothingness.wow --- you are sounding like someone that has memorized lots of media blurbs. Say it' enough and it becomes believable. I disagree with much of what you have stated, it sticks out as a clear projection.
Your comment makes it clear that you are upset with Republicans. Well, guess what I am very upset with Democrats Will I take time to list all the derogatory problems I have witnessed and am living with? No... I have no wish to argue each point. It is a futile task.
to sum it up --- Democrats in my view have lost credibility, and yes, are very displeased that they could not pull any of their social agenda. They have nothing else but a social. agenda. And it well appears not many Americans really care about that social agenda.
I will stick to this sentiment.
I am hoping we get a good Republican candidate that will offer a promising agenda that will be pleasing to the majority of Americans. Yes, they need to get past the blame game. But run on an agenda of moving the country forward --- jobs, education, healthcare, economy, and yes immigration. I am overall the social BS, I want to hear solid plans to make the lives of all Americans better. Pipedream, probably. But, these are the things Government is and should be responsible for.
Because in my view the Democrats have nothing I mean nothing that I could support. They made a mess of the country in a very short time.Yes, Ron DeSantis is an awesome leader! It will be hard on Florida, to lose him as our Governor, but I am willing to share, for the good of the Country.
More importantly, so that America's children will be properly educated and not indoctrinated!Yes, I'm sure the focus on imaginary "doctrination" will fix this.."The latest results of an international exam given to teenagers ranked the USA ninth in reading and 31st in math literacy out of 79 countries and economies. America has a smaller-than-average share of top-performing math students, and scores have essentially been flat for two decades."
I think it's time we focus on what actually matters for the future of our country as well as students. But I guess we can continue to import people to fill out tech jobs that our own people aren't prepared for. but hey at least We can feel good about saving them from "indoctrination"
Governor DeSantis' authoritarian lean is on full display. Attempting to punish Disney economically for speaking out about his "Parental Control" bill. Using his office to essentially squash dissent and free speech with attempts to remove their long held self governing special status.Oh now you're blaming the "indoctrination" for our students falling behind in STEM over the last decades?
I suppose indoctrination runs both ways..
"A Christian teacher in Texas who was accused of unconstitutional “religious indoctrination” after posting a video of her first-grade class reciting a Bible verse has received support from her local community.
Earlier in November, Susan Schobel, a teacher at Brown Primary School, posted a video to her Facebook page showing her students sitting in a circle reciting Romans 12:9-10, the Austin American-Statesman reports.
“Start your day with a good Bible verse and life just seems better!!” Schobel wrote in the video’s caption. “This is our daily Bible verse.”Unfortunately, what she is doing is very plainly using the state to push her specific religion. That is very highly illegal.
It is really surprising how many people find such actions quite reasonable...as long as it is their religion and not some other. Were it her child in the class taught by a Muslim teacher, quoting from the Koran, I rather doubt Susan Schobel would have approved.Our Founding Fathers intended for the bible to be taught in public schools. God was intertwined from day one. But, that's another subject for another day.
None of us should ever condone teachers discussing their sex lives with young children, nor confusing them with how they should and shouldn't refer to them, they, themselves, it... and all of that placing of proper pronouns and gender fluidity nonsense."Our Founding Fathers intended for the bible to be taught in public schools. God was intertwined from day one."
That's why they forbid the state to have any kind of religion at all - so that the state could teach Christianity in its public schools. I don't think so.Wellllll . . . That quote caught my attention too. So I'm fresh from a quick look around.
Circumstantially, and with a bit of stretching, that statement can find support in the context that the "entwined" part refers to the morals and thoughts of the men that constructed the Constitution.
The validity seems to hinge on Fisher Ames, and so does the stretching. Although probably not commonly known as a 'Founding Father,' (ie. the seven most noted as Founding Fathers), he did contribute, so technically he was a Founding Father.
Another stretch is that Ames was the author of the 1st Amendment. This isn't exactly true, nor is it exactly false. He did author the wording that was used for the religion part of the amendment, but he did not author the accepted amendment.
Ames also supported teaching the reading of the Bible in schools. This doesn't mean anything relative to our first thoughts about that quote, but when it is added to those first two stretches, I can see the argument.
I don't agree with it relative to the textual and intended results, but in the context described, I can't argue it is wrong.
As a side note, just a tidbit I stumbled across in that same look-about; assuming your lower-case "state" meant an individual state, not our nation as a state, there seems to be an argument about your "state" statement too. Textually, the Constitution doesn't prohibit states from declaring state-sanctioned religions, it only prohibits "Congress" from doing it. Specifically, the Federal Congress. Or so the argument goes.
*Damn, 7 "states" in one paragraph. Keyword stuffing? ;-)
GACorrect right down the line. Some of the "founding fathers" supported the state teaching religion...but the consensus of all of them was not to allow it.
Likewise the state (small "s") is allowed to have a religion according to the Constitution as I read it...but the SCOTUS has denied that that is the meaning. SCOTUS, as I understand it, has decided that the state can no more promote a religion than the State can.Yep, both points have arguments, the "Bible" one depends on extrapolation, (wrong as I see the point), and the "state" one must exclude Court rulings, (again, wrong, reality demands that the Court can't be dismissed).
GA
Joe's Agenda - I will offer a link to his agenda. A couple of examples ---
President Biden will deliver bold action and immediate relief for American families as the country grapples with converging crises. This will include actions to control the COVID-19 pandemic, provide economic relief, tackle climate change, and advance racial equity and civil rights, as well as immediate actions to reform our immigration system and restore America’s standing in the world.
IMO, he has failed at all three. No need for excuses, In my opinion on the mentioned three my view is set in stone.
The Republican Representatives are actively working on problems that many Republicans have concerns about. Our broken border; new voting laws; new abortion laws, support for gun rights outlined in the Second Amendment; protecting our traditional values often with a Christian foundation; our foreign policy, and a strong military.; better education; crime. We have an agenda that reflects our concerns and decreases Government overreach.
Yes, this agenda may lack what you feel is needed for America at this point in our history. However, it may be time to realize not all Americans see the vision that Democrats hold.
In regard to DeSantis - From what I can see it was not the
Governor that rejected the math books but the Florida Department of Education. I can's assume as you have indicated that DeSantis had any say so in the matter. Yes, the media has spun a rumor that "he" ban math books.
"Florida’s Department of Education rejected nearly half of the suggested math textbooks for 2022-2023 because they violate state laws prohibiting teaching critical race theory, among other reasons. The decision sets a new high-watermark for books bans in the state that has become a principal battleground on such cultural issues.
A press release titled “Florida Rejects Publishers’ Attempts to Indoctrinate Students” published on the department’s website Friday said that the quashed textbooks “included references to Critical Race Theory (CRT), inclusions of Common Core, and the unsolicited addition of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) in mathematics.” Florida in 2020 abandoned the use of widely-adopted academic standards, known as Common Core.
The statement also noted that 41% was the highest level of rejection in the state’s history and that among kindergarten through fifth-grade groups specifically, 71% of the suggested math books were “not appropriately aligned with Florida standards.”
“It seems that some publishers attempted to slap a coat of paint on an old house built on the foundation of Common Core, and indoctrinating concepts like race essentialism, especially, bizarrely, for elementary school students,” Governor Ron DeSantis is quoted as saying in the statement.
One of the rejected books was "Statistics and Probability with Applications," a high-school level statistics text from Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishers, a division of MacMillan Learning, Executive Vice President and General Manager Charles Linsmeier said in an email. The company was not given an explanation for its exclusion. “We are disheartened by the lack of transparency in the selection and approval process,” Linsmeier said.
Critical race theory posits that race is a construct and that racism is systemic and embedded in the legal and legislative systems of the country. Florida banned its teaching last year as part of a nationwide campaign by Republican lawmakers to block it from the classroom. Since January of last year, 17 states have banned the theory or other topics such as sexism from school curriculums, according to an analysis by Education Week. In a survey conducted last year by the American Association of Teachers, 96% of educators said their schools did not teach the theory.
The Florida legislature has put particular focus on such bans. DeSantis last month signed a bill prohibiting the discussion of gender and sexual identity in kindergarten through third grade classrooms. The state Senate also passed a bill known as the “Stop W.O.K.E.” act, which would limit how companies, schools, and universities can teach about race. It is currently awaiting a signature by the governor.
The state Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding specific rejected titles and content."
https://fortune.com/2022/04/18/florida- … ce-theory/
I have not been able to find any direct comments from DeSantis on this story. So, I find your statement (" Ron DeSantis has single-handedly struck down 50% of the math books today chosen for use in Florida because they somehow relate to critical race theory?! ") hard to prove.
I did see the interview Ronna gave -- I agree that we need a new debate platform. I find the presidential debates were conducted poorly and showed bias to favor the Democratic candidate. In fact, I have become ashamed of having them televised, providing the world a view of such unprofessionalism and biased crap. I was overjoyed to see the Republican party won't take part in such debates.
Mitch McConnell Senate minority leader, has declined thus far to release a party agenda. It is a bit early I would think.
I disagree that the Republicans do any more Democratic bashing than the Democrats bashing Republicans. Just as you have done in your comment... And I suppose some Republicans are holding on to what they feel happened in 2020, but I think most have moved on, and are getting stoked about the 2024 election, as I am.
So for you to assume -- "Republicans are still holding on to a warped sense of reality in terms of the 2020 election was "stolen". Seems to be your view, and perhaps not a reality.
.
"What is at the heart of the GOP these days? It seems like absolute, utter nothingness."
A good direct question. As a Republican, my heart tells me help is on the way. It tells me all that has been destroyed can be repaired, and it tells me to work toward the goal of getting a Republican back in the White House that will support an American agenda. The agenda I offered in my opening words.In terms of The Florida State board of education rejecting the books, The rejections come based on DeSantis' new bill. The books were rejected based on their supposed inclusion of elements of critical race theory. In math? Specific examples from the rejected texts we're not given. So much for "parental involvement" in education.
DeSantis claimed that the proposals from publishing companies contained lessons on “indoctrinating concepts like race essentialism” for elementary students."
“You do have things like social and emotional learning, and some of the things that are more political in there,” DeSantis said of the disapproved math textbooks, though he did not provide specific examples.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/1 … s-00025918
https://www.tampabay.com/news/education … textbooks/
As far as Mitch McConnell, he has been telling donors and fellow lawmakers that Republicans will not be releasing a legislative agenda ahead of the 2022 midterms. If there are new solutions, ideas I'd think now would be the time to hear them. A lot of time and energy is spent on opposing President Biden but there are no alternatives being offered. Their is no Republican party platform whatsoever, There hasn't been one since 2016.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mcconne … ns-2021-12
We have a problem in this country with a shared reality in terms of the 2020 election. One-third of the public continues to believe voter fraud determined the outcome of the 2020 election, a finding that has been consistent over the past year. How do we forge ahead as a country if we don't even share the same reality?
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit … us_111521/
Among Trump voters, 40% say he “definitely” won and another 36% say he “probably” won the election. This is just irrational. And it is being stoked on the campaign trail currently. Governor Kaye Ivey in Alabama just released a campaign commercial centered on the big lie. Not to mention so many others who are currently campaigning on it.
I applaud you for rejecting the big lie but unfortunately much of the Republican Party embraces it.
https://youtu.be/FHbzgbhdhCk
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … -election/In my view, I do not feel CRT or Gender issues need to be part of our children's education until early high school. Let these subjects be handled by parents, and school social workers.
"As far as Mitch McConnell, he has been telling donors and fellow lawmakers that Republicans will not be releasing a legislative agenda ahead of the 2022 midterms."
As I said it's too soon to talk agenda. We have no idea who will be running, it's questionable that you feel Republicans should produce an agenda without the individual that will create the agenda. Let's put it this way --- If Trump runs he would have his own personal agenda, if DeSantis runs he would most likely have a different agenda.
I have never witnessed an agenda laid out before the party has a candidate.
"A lot of time and energy is spent on opposing President Biden but there are no alternatives being offered. There is no Republican party platform whatsoever, There hasn't been one since 2016."
I could say, and will -- a lot of time and energy was spent opposing Trump in 2015 and 2016 with a scam that now is in the hands of a special counsel. I disagree we have a good platform, and it remains basically to repair the damage that the Democrats have caused, and the very things that we need to take America forward --- again --- The Republican Representatives are actively working on problems that many Republicans have concerns about. Our broken border; new voting laws; new abortion laws, support for gun rights outlined in the Second Amendment; protecting our traditional values often with a Christian foundation; our foreign policy, and a strong military.; better education; crime. We have an agenda that reflects our concerns and decreases Government overreach.
You can disagree with this agenda, but that would be your problem. I support it. It seems you have a problem accepting others might have a different vision than your own.
I have no concern for those that believe there was widespread voter fraud. This is what we have, and these people have a right to believe what they choose. This is a free country is it not? What would you suggest we do with those that have the belief there was a fraud. Should they not be allowed to vote? So to answer your question -- "How do we forge ahead as a country if we don't even share the same reality?"
RESPECT OTHERS REALITIES. They have a right to it.
To make a point --- I must add, did you believe the Russia Russia Russia story that is being proved to have been a scam to ruin a man's reputation?
Do you believe Trump did a poor job handling COVID?
I believe Trump was the victim of a vile scam, and I believe he did a wonderful job with COVID.
Do I have the right to have these beliefs? If so, I would think those that feel and believe fraud was committed during our last election, have the right to what they believe. Yes, a lot has gone on to disprove voter fraud. But a lot also went on to protect the big Russia scam, and many continue to say Trump handled COVID terribly. The point is we all have a right to our opinions, and should not be vilified.
One can wring their hands all they please, Americans ultimately will be heard with their vote. That's what makes this country great --- we vote every four years, and once again be heard."In my view, I do not feel CRT or Gender issues need to be part of our children's education until early high school. Let these subjects be handled by parents, and school social workers"
They are not part of any young child's education. Are they specifically being taught in your district? I've asked repeatedly here for anyone and everyone to check with their local school district and find out if these are being taught and specifically to call out which textbooks or materials were adopted through your board of education (which the meetings are open for you to attend)? Despite what Governor DeSantis says there really already is parental involvement in education. Sadly, many parents aren't involved. This is a non-existent issue being used for political theater to the detriment of good teachers. There is already a huge teacher shortage, in this political climate I can't imagine anyone wanting to pursue teaching. I feel fortunate that I've retired. I'd hate to have that child's parent who I've never seen All year long come to sue me because a questionable word or concept was raised in the classroom.
During midterms and general elections we have always seen candidates in either party run on a platform. For Republicans in the midterm's the theme seems to be the big lie.
"I have no concern for those that believe there was widespread voter fraud. This is what we have, and these people have a right to believe what they choose. This is a free country is it not?"
Do you have concern with politicians campaigning on a lie? Continuing to promote something that is patently false? The election was proven fair and secure in multiple ways by courts, state governments the DOJ of the Trump administration. Really what more is needed?
Continuing to portray the election as stolen is a huge problem for me. As an independent voter who has no interest in twisting myself into a pretzel to adopt any party line
It's offensive to common sense and intelligence.
I'll piggyback on your comments on the Durham investigation. If it vindicates Mr Trump's claims how would you feel if Democrats call it a hoax? Continue with claims that have been proven untrue? Ignoring courts? Ignoring the best evidence available?
You seem to want to peg me into a Democrat party position. I probably fall left of center on most issues but don't identify with any party. I don't have the need or want to have a party identity. Maybe most of my views or opinions or issues that I support fact for here fall far too liberal for you but That's where I land. But that's not to say where I would land on all issues. I have no problem supporting any view across the spectrum. Like you stated yourself, everyone has a right to their beliefs. If anything, I generally return to my libertarian roots.
If Mr. Trump was the victim of a "vile scam" as you say is it any more vile than Republicans pretending that our current president is not legitimate?
I understand you are a staunch Republican so again I just want to say I don't come to my beliefs from the same place of party that you do. This is just My assessment, my views of what I am seeing.
If Durham supports Mr Trump's claims then why wouldn't I accept it? Just as when an election is deemed fair by those with the power to make such a decision I accept it also. I don't need or want to subvert reality to support a party. To me, that's giving away your freedom.I live in a very Republican area, and parents are very aware of what is being offered in our schools. So, no Gender issues are not being taught. The schools do address racial issues as well as slavery in grades 9 - 12. I agree it's sad more parents are not involved with their children's education.
"Do you have concern with politicians campaigning on a lie? "
Actually, I can't say what any other candidates are running on other than those that are here in Michigan. Have you an example of who is campaigning on the 2020 election fraud?
"the president is not legitimate" sounds very similar to what I heard during the four years Trump held office.
"If Durham supports Mr. Trump's claims then why wouldn't I accept it? "
I would hope you just look at the evidence, and make your own conclusion.The Big Lie is the defining issue in Republican races around the country .
Just look at this grand old beauty. She's a southern legend all right.
https://youtu.be/FHbzgbhdhCk
https://m.facebook.com/MikeCollinsGA10/ … 506560738/
https://host2.adimpact.com/admo/viewer/5235728
https://host2.adimpact.com/admo/#/viewe … a76332449/
https://host2.adimpact.com/admo/viewer/5223879
https://twitter.com/KariLake/status/144 … Oas07r8KJA
KARI LAKE: running for governor of Arizona.."If you're watching this ad right now, it means you're in the middle of watching a fake news program. You know how to know it's fake? - because they won't even cover the biggest story out there, the rigged election of 2020."
According to a report from the election watchdog group States United Action, at least 11 candidates who have denied the 2020 results are valid are running for attorney-general posts in 10 states, and at least 21 election deniers are trying to win secretary of state races in 18 states, as of the end of January.
I believe you have several in your state including Kristina Karamo, a community college professor who also peddled conspiracy theories about election fraud, and who never held elected office, has received Mr. Trump’s backing to be the Republican secretary of state candidate.
"After months of failing to gain traction, J.D. Vance ( running for a U.S. Senate seat from Ohio) is so desperate to remain relevant, is now saying the 2020 presidential election was stolen".
https://ohiodems.org/j-d-vance-follows- … as-stolen/
I could find at least one Republican running in almost every state across the nation who is running on the big lie.
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.
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.
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.
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-rightEngland has a history of civility that has always been lacking here.
Yeah, that is the strong impression I get from these forums.
I've been to England. When it comes to politics, there are many situations where there is no civility at all. I have seen fights break out in pubs over politics. Fights have broken out over football games as well. You can't sell that English civility myth to people who haven't been there or have known British people. I do recommend people visit Britian because it is a great place, but, just as uncivil and the US in many situations.
Yeah, football hooliganism is a big embarrassment to the English; it’s been a problem since the ‘Middle Ages’ when King Edward II banned football in 1314 because of the adverse effect on trade that football hooliganism was having.
Football hooliganism got so bad in England by the 1980s that England was banned from playing football in Europe for 15 years from 1985 until 1990.
In fact it’s such a big problem in Britain that’s there even a whole Wikipedia article on it: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_ … rn_Ireland
But I don’t think you’ve learnt that from being over here in England, because it’s not the pubs where the fights breakout, it’s in the area where the football matches take place. And certainly some pubs can get rather rowdy, but it’s never about politics, it’s just the youth having a good night out and having too much to drink - binge drinking; binge drinking being another British embarrassment. Remembering that the drinking age in the UK is 18 not 21.
These scenes in this video are typical of what nightlife is like in any city in Britain. Boozy Brits down THOUSANDS of pints and bottles of vodka as clubs re-open after lockdown (the last thing on their minds is politics): https://youtu.be/lpUXzVXP_do"And certainly some pubs can get rather rowdy, but it’s never about politics"
I think it's possible you haven't been to some of the pubs I've visited in England. In some of the smaller towns, if you mention Ireland or Margaret Thatcher you can just sit back and watch things get interesting.
I think we can agree that England hand many pubs all over the country and all of them can be very different from one another.And I think you might be exaggerating just a tadge!
We can agree that England has many pubs, and most certainly each one has its own character and clientele. There are currently around 46,800 pubs across the whole of the UK - one pub for approximately 1,436 people in the UK (size of UK population divided by the number of pubs).
However, seeing that you live in America, how many pubs have you been to in Britain, and how many times have you been to those pubs; most certainly only a fraction I’m sure, and certainly not enough to make a bold statement to infer that fights will break out in an English pub over politics, as you suggested in your above comments.
Don’t forget, when I was a teenager I started drinking in pubs and nightclubs when I was 16, which was normal for my generation. And pub crawls is a popular pastime in Britain, So during my teenage years I and my mates frequented many pubs across Bristol, and anywhere else we visited (on holiday) e.g. four of us travelling to Scotland for a week’s holiday, staying in YMCA’s and enjoying the evenings in the local pubs.
A pub crawl in Sheffield, England: https://youtu.be/QPPKTxYrvuk
Since I’ve been married I and my wife have always had two staycations a year (holiday within your own country); visiting just about every corner of Britain, and Northern Ireland, and we always prefer to go for a pub meal rather than a restaurant while on holiday because pub food is invariably significantly cheaper and the atmosphere is good. Not just pubs in cities, but more often than not its town and country (village) pubs what we visit while on holiday.
And it’s not just our couple of staycation holidays in Britain each year, we also take frequent day trips to more local locations during the summer months e.g. places that are within just a few hours’ drive from Bristol, such as the Midlands and South Wales etc., and again, stopping off at a country pub for a pub meal during our day trip is normal.
So over the decades I’ve been in more than my fair share of British pubs, so I have a lot better idea of what pub life is like in Britain than you do; and they are nothing like what you are suggesting.
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.
That sounds like fiction to me; I live hear in Europe and I don't see what you are claiming.
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.
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.
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-39495922I 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?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
I have also noted that you never admitted any of the violence commited by Antifa. None of them. Why?
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.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.Rather tetchy when people don’t agree with you!
And I suppose black is white in your world?
The political gulf between Marxism and Democrats is so wide your statement is laughable; I don’t think you even know what Marxism is do you?
I’m not American, but I don’t think the opposition (those with opposing views to you) are any less patriotic to the American Constitution than you; it’s just that they have different views to you.Trust me, Arthur, we are not all as insane as you might believe based upon comments recently shared.
Yet,
When someone ignores encyclopedic information preferring the skewed madness within their own minds, then you have to wonder.....
Much of the political discourse in this country has deteriorated to this. From that perspective, you and your countrymen may consider yourselves most fortunate.
The gap is so wide between the sane and insane here that it has the potential energy of a nuclear bomb, and that in itself may well be the source of our ultimate undoing.I do trust you, I just wish more Americans were like you; it's healthy to have different politic views (democracy), but its not healthy when one side (like Trump supporters) get so oppressive and try to stifle the opposition - such deep divisions (polarisation) in society is not good for democracy, as it will turn to hatred and violence.
"It will turn to hatred and violence"?
It may have been hidden from you Nathanville, but Cred knows, this ship has sailed!
We have had four + years of 'Left Gone Wild'! The worst of the worst, among the left, Antifa and BLM, were/are, ALL about hatred and violence...mayhem and destruction. They tried their darndest to destroy America, one city at a time! We have had a record-breaking number of Police Officers killed this year...and the year is still young!! The 'founders' of BLM are nothing more than opportunists, they have gotten wealthy off of "hatred and violence" mayhem and destruction...and death!
Again, I must insist, get your facts straight!Who are the founders of antifa? I thought this was just an acronym for anti-fascist? Are you saying this is an actual organization? With leaders?
Abwilliams; it’s not so much getting facts right; it’s more of a question of political perspective. From my perspective, from across the pond – Trump supporters since before 2016 has caused division and destruction, inciting the left to violence. And it’s not just in America where Trump incited hatred, Trump attacked Britain with his lies and fake news on many occasions e.g. his spreading of fake news that parts of London was ‘no go’ areas for the police because of Muslims, according to him (all of which is fake news).
Trump also insulated our then Prime Minister (Theresa May); a female – and we know how demeaning Trump is of females; and he frequently insulted our London Mayor, just because he’s a Muslim – and we know what Trump thinks of Muslims.
In U.K., Trump Insults Theresa May, Praises Far-Right Boris Johnson, Attacks London’s Muslim Mayor: https://youtu.be/O8HPWN4pnBE
In fact, since 2016 he’s upset the British to such an extent that not only did the Speaker ban him from speaking in the House of Commons on his visit to Britain, but his visit had to be delayed and downgraded from a State visit because of all the protests against Trump in Britain. In fact he’s disliked by 70% of the British population, and liked by just 14%: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ex … nald_Trump
What The Protests In England Against Trump Looked Like: https://youtu.be/qte9XZg37rw
And across the pond, our view of BLM is radically different to the American right-wing view. In 2020 during the worldwide BLM protests, my fellow Bristolians toppled the statue of the slave trader and dumped it in the local docks (floating harbour); and for their actions, they are seen as heroes by the locals in Bristol, so much so that when the four main protestors were taken to court they were found ‘NOT Guilty’ by their fellow Bristolian jurors.
Edward Colston: Four found not guilty of criminal damage after Bristol statue toppled: https://youtu.be/fQOAlDKRQfw
So in judging us from across the pond, you have to take into account that we are a different culture, with different values; hence a different (but equally valid) viewpoint."Trump also insulated our then Prime Minister (Theresa May); a female – and we know how demeaning Trump is of females; and he frequently insulted our London Mayor, just because he’s a Muslim – and we know what Trump thinks of Muslims."
As an American, I was embarrassed by such untoward behavior toward such a long time friend and ally. It was uncalled for and quite trailer-trashy.
So much for the idea of a general refinement of those that are wealthy, or if there ever existed an exception to the rule......."Trump supporters since before 2016 has caused division and destruction, inciting the left to violence."
I'm sorry, Nathan, but the only "incitement" needed was the election of Trump. Neither his supporters nor Trump himself needed to do a thing - the violence began over his election and grew from there.
LOL This is rather humorous given the truly massive efforts to stifle the opposition (Trump). Never have we seen such huge efforts (not one but two impeachment attempts!) to discredit a sitting President, as well as years and years of efforts using both the FBI and CIA to dig up dirt on him.
But you're certainly correct that it is not good for democracy.In answer to both you Credence and wilderness; Trump lacks ‘Diplomacy’.
Do you mean like when the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign sought to claim Trump was colluding with Russia to subvert an elaborate scam? A scam that needed a special counsel to investigate the scam, and a second investigation to follow up on the first one.
Sharlee: Not wishing to get embroiled in American politics; it didn’t go unnoticed on this side of the pond that Trump was far more pally with Putin than he was with our Government Officials in Britain.
Trump was rude and insulting to Theresa May (then Prime Minister) (a woman), and insulting and rude to our democratically elected London Mayor (a Muslim).Most likely I should have not jumped into this conversation. However, this statement caught me off guard. --- get so oppressive and try to stifle the opposition - such deep divisions (polarisation) in society is not good for democracy, as it will turn to hatred and violence. I agree, but it took two sides to build the great divide.
I can't argue the fact that Trump was rude to former Prime Minister May. This is very much a fact. I also do not appreciate that kind of behavior.
I can't really comment on Trump's relationship with Putin. I do know at one point he did say " keep your friends close, but enemies closer".
I can truthfully say Russia did not wage a war on Trump's time or threaten to use nuclear weapons.
I must ask, what did he say about the Muslim Mayor?
I thought he got on well with Boris. At any rate. Trump was known for many statements that were deemed rude. I think he would win an award for rudest US president.
Hi Sharlee, you’re most welcome to join in the conversation; nice to see you.
Yes it does take two sides to build a great divide (or two to tango as they say); but not both sides need be the aggressor e.g. in the Ukraine/Russian war only one side is the aggressor, the other side is just fighting back. What I am trying to say is that instead of antagonising his opponents (as Trump was very good at doing), it might have been more fruitful to ‘build bridges’ e.g. a hand of friendship to find the common ground between the two sides, upon which co-operation could be built. In other words, you could say he should have ‘built bridges’ rather than ‘walls’ (no pun intended).
Yes, “keep your friends close, but enemies closer" is a tactic Theresa May tried when she was Prime Minister e.g. she promoted MPs, including Boris Johnson, who were a threat to her, to senior Ministerial Posts in her Government where she could keep a tight control over them; that is of course until Boris Johnson and others resigned their Ministerial posts so that they could undermine her authority.
Yeah, you are right, Putin did not wage war on Trump’s watch; but Trump did show a desire for America to withdraw from NATO; which Putin would have read as a sign of weakness. Putin had been plotting to invade Ukraine ever since before his invasion of Crimea in 2014, so the writing was on the wall; it wasn’t a matter of if, but of when. 2022 is the centenary of the foundation of the Soviet Union of Russia, so for the Russian people to see the reunification of the old Soviet Union, or at least part of it e.g. the repatriation of Ukraine, and Moldova (as recently announced as their next target by Russian Officials) would be a matter of pride!
Yeah, Trump was rather pally with Boris because they were largely ‘two peas in a pod’; very similar politics in many respects.
Theresa May wasn’t the only European Leader he was rude about; he was also disrespectful to the then German head of State; Chancellor Angela Merkel (a woman).
Below is a short video clip by ‘Time Magazine’ that sums up the feud between Trump and London Mayor Sadiq Khan. At the end of the video clip is Theresa May defending Sadiq Kahn against Trump, a Conservative (Capitalist) leader defending a Labour (Socialist) leader; something you don’t see every day, an indication of the strength of anti-Trump feeling that cut across the political divide in Britain.
President Donald Trump Vs. London Mayor Sadiq Khan: https://youtu.be/zSWqwO4v2LwI can't and would be foolish to not try to defend Trump's personality. In my opinion, it is like no other president we have ever had. He is unfiltered, to say the least. He was never at a loss for words, was very transparent, and would unleash on anyone.
As an American, I had a very hard choice, and I well knew Trump would be Trump, due to his celebrity I was aware of his outspoken personality, as well that IMO narcissistic behavior. On the other hand, (this will give my age away) I was around for Clinton's rise to power. I witnessed what I felt were two very dishonest politicians making their way to the White House. I in good faith could not vote for Hillary Clinton. I felt the weight of choosing who to vote for. I never had faced such a hard decision in regard to choosing a candidate to vote for. I truely liked Trump's agenda and felt it was the right agenda for America at that very point in our history.
The country was fractured in my view by Obama. I voted for Obama the first time around for the same reason, I felt his agenda was the right one at that point. I soon became very disappointed. For reasons that I don't feel the need to share. No good can come of insulting a man that tried his best.
I was very satisfied with Trump's job performance, but not with his demeanor in any respect. The complications of his presidency furthered the divide. Now we are left we many Americans that don't want to build bridges. Why, In my view, they have no interest in getting to the other side. They see the other side of that bridge a place they would not even consider visiting.
America is at a true turning point. I think the next election will give way to which way the country will proceed. However, the good thing is we have a democracy, as many nations do. We can always start fresh in four years.
Very complicated times...
I did take the time and visit the link you shared... Very representative of Trump's demeanor.
What do you feel about Churchill? Was he not a very outspoken deficient
man,? Yet many still felt he was a decent and honorable man, a good leader. He was also thought of as a charming man. Was it not a combination of the entire package that made him very controversial, yet still admired by many around the world?
It would seem today that Winston may have been considered perhaps a "Trumpster".
Sharlee, I’d like to start by saying that which personality traits people like to see or dislike in others, and their political views, is a personal thing, and we all have different views; not wishing to offend, that’s my way of diplomatically saying I don’t like Trump or what he stands for.
Thanks for your very frank summery of your voting dilemma, a very enlightening read. We are fortunate in Britain in that if we don’t like either of the main parties, there are plenty of other political parties or ‘Independents’ to support – so we are rather spoilt for choice.
What is common in Britain are protest votes e.g. the party you normally support has upset you in some way, so come Election Day you vote for a different party in protest. This type of protest vote lost the Liberal Democrats half their seats in the 2015 General Election. In the 2010 General Election there was no overall winner and it was up to the Liberal Democrats whether they would form a coalition Government with Labour or Conservative; the Liberal Democrats chose to align with the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats voting support base never forgave them for that decision. Consequently the Liberal Democrats have slipped from being the 3rd largest political party in Parliament to the 4th largest.
In re-reading your first paragraph, they are qualities in Trump that I don’t like (he’s not diplomatic); but it does remind me a little of the Scottish trait e.g. where the Scots are very forthright in what they say and how they say it, which leads to the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in Parliament being periodically expelled from the House of Commons for using ‘Unparliamentarily Language’ against the Prime Minister; although to the opposition parties and to socialists like me he is seen as a hero for having the guts to speak out where justified.
Below is a short video clip of the leader of the Scottish National Party being expelled from the House of Commons for using ‘Unparliamentarily Language’ (it’s quite entertaining, and quite un-British; although very Scottish). https://youtu.be/zCp5X_UivSw
Yes Winston Churchill was very outspoken and defiant; which made him a natural ‘wartime’ leader, just as Margaret Thatcher (the Iron Lady) was a natural ‘wartime’ leader during the Falklands War in 1982. When Britain declared war on Germany in 1939 it was Neville Chamberlain (Conservative) who was the Prime Minister; but Britain needed a sterner leader during wartime, which is why Winston Churchill took the reins from 1940 for the rest of the war.
But he was not as popular as a peace time leader, in spite of being a wartime hero e.g. although Churchill won the war for Britain, in 1945 (immediately after the war) the British People voted him out of Office; and opted to vote a Socialist Government into power instead.
Yes Churchill, just like Margaret Thatcher, was admired around the world, but neither was as popular at home. It is questionable whether Churchill “was a decent and honourable man” or “thought of as a charming man”. Most certainly he was very controversial, and by his very ruthlessness I’m not sure how descent and honourable he was; certainly he put on the airs and graces to appear charming – but my mother loathed him because during the great depression and general strike of the 1930s Churchill wanted to send in the Army to stop the coalminers from striking; an action my mother thought was despicable.
I wouldn’t consider Winston a Trumpster, but Boris Johnson certainly has some of Trump’s traits.
Just how much do Boris Johnson and Donald Trump have in common? https://youtu.be/3_uY09DqQCkBut, what if you found out that you grew to hate someone, based on lies from the get-go? Do you think you could stop hating at that point? Has the damage been done (or rather, has it served its purpose) and there is no point of return?
Abwilliams, yep, from what I see from across the pond; propaganda in American politics is very toxic; which is a great shame. But while we are on the subject of lying:-
One of the things I hate about Trump is that he is a pathological liar; I can’t see that changing.
Boris Johnson lies when it suits him, which is quite frequently, so he’s not one to be trusted; which is largely why according to the latest opinion polls 65% of the British public think Boris Johnson is doing badly as a Prime Minister, and 53% of British voters think that Boris Johnson should resign as Prime Minister. Not surprisingly an opinion poll published on 17th Aprils puts Labour at 43% and the Conservatives at 32%, which would translate into a landslide victory for Labour if there was a General Election now; so it is likely that the Conservative Party will dump Boris Johnson before the next General Election in favour of another leader who might stand a better chance of winning against Labour.
Although Boris is not personally liked by the British Public, he has nevertheless commanded a high level of support on his handling of crisis in recent years e.g. the pandemic and the Ukrainian war:-
80% of the British Public supported the way Boris handled the pandemic, and more recently, with the Ukrainian war 78% of British public supports Boris sending arms to Ukraine.
Also, 68% of the British public would also support the UK donating western fighter places to Ukraine, which is what the UK Government had originally intended to do near the beginning of the conflict, but was stopped from doing so by the USA; although the UK Government has today raised the idea again as a real possibility – but not surprisingly, only 40% of Brits would support western air forces enforcing a no-fly zone, and shooting down Russian aircraft.Didn't America pioneer democracy in the world? Yes, she dose. Critically, she should set an example of what her democracy means to the world. But as for ex-President Trump of America, and Boris John of Great Britain being liars, I'm wonder and laughing. They're politicians, right? Let me draw an analogy. When the late Kofi Anna, Secretary-General of the United Nations visited Nigeria, my country for the first time, his host and Head of State, Olusegun Obasanjo, brought Kofi Anna to my state to chat with Dr. Peter Oddili. When taking leave back to the UN in America, Kofi said: 'I wil come again'. The media was awash with Kof4 telling a lie. Other try to explain the fact that Kofi is saying or means he's going, and that he use a political English. 8-years before he died, I didn't see Kofi Anna visiting Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
Miebakagh: According to many scholars, the concepts and name of democracy and constitution as a form of government originated in ancient Athens c508BC.
The origins upon which the British and American Constitution, and other constitutions around the world are based is the Magna Carta signed by King John of England in 1215; the Magna Carta also established the principle of trial by jury.
As regards to modern democracy, as we know it, it’s something that has evolved slowly across the world, with different countries being the first for advancement in different aspects of democracy; for examples:-
• Golden Liberty was a democratic political system the Kingdom of Poland after the Union of Lublin in 1569.
• In 1610 the British constitution was modified so that by way of proclamation the King could no longer change the law of the land.
• In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses is the first representative legislative body in the New World (America).
• In 1679 the principle of Habeas Corpus is established in England.
• In 1689 the Bill of Rights becomes law in England; the Bill of Rights was not ratified in the USA until 1791 (over 100 years later).
• Australia was the first country in the world to introduce the ‘secret ballot’ which they introduced in 1856.
• 1894, Australia was the first country in the world to allow women politicians to be elected.
• Universal suffrage e.g. gives the right to vote to all adult citizens, regardless of wealth, income, gender, social status, race, ethnicity, political stance, or any other restriction, was first conceived (for men only) in Britain in the 19th century. New Zealand extended it to include women later in the 19th century.
• In 1906 Finland not only introduced universal suffrage for all, but also ‘proportional representation’; a higher level of democracy that both Britain and the USA lack.
• Women got the vote in Britain in 1918, in the USA in 1920, and in France in 1945.
As regards politicians lying: There is that old joke that goes:-
Q: “How do you know when a politician is lying”?
A: “When he opens his mouth”.
But putting jokes aside; yes politicians do lie, but in British politics it’s a subject that is naively taken seriously in Parliament e.g. it is considered an offence for a politician to lie in Parliament, and if caught doing so is expected to do the honourable thing and resign! And also, a politician who in Parliament accuses another politician of lying will be expelled from the House of Commons; which quite frequently happens to the leader of the Scottish National Party – because being Scottish he is outspoken, and will speak his mind.
Sue Gray report: MP Ian Blackford KICKED OUT of Commons for Boris Johnson criticism: https://youtu.be/Mj_EzDEUpHk
SNP's Ian Blackford calls Boris Johnson 'a liar' in Commons: https://youtu.be/Ka4i34zbrq0
In Britain, although politicians do lie, it’s a question of degree e.g. political twist; propaganda or out-right lie. In Britain, Boris is one of the few British politicians, historically, and in modern politics, who openly lies when it suits him, and refuses to acknowledge it’s a lie.
Even Margaret Thatcher, who was disliked by most British People, never actually lied; what she was famous for is what the British newspapers called “Being Economic with the Truth”.Thank you, Arthur, for the various democracy progress of the various countries. But I'm jiggling because of the answer for the old joke.
Actually it was only about 40%, the rest were loyal to the crown or indifferent.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Just so. The "state" may not force any religion onto its citizens. Not Islam, not Buddhism, not Wicca and not Christianity.
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.
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.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."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.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.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.
GAWell let's be honest and stop straddling the fence, acceptance of judeo-Christian values that the Right likes to trumpet as the foundation of society is based upon those that professed more than actually practiced. But, that is true of too many people.
It is not a point of conflict but a matter of fact. What they did to support what they profess is more important. So, if I can't make that point, maybe I need to go to my own tavern and have a drink.Okay, I'll be honest. What the hell are you talking about?
Your response was to an agreement on teaching the Bible under certain conditions. Is there a Black version of the Bible that has different values for acceptance of Judeo-Christian values?
Where is acceptance tied to white preference? And what is the straddling?
GAYou can just press your delete on this line of reasoning right now, GA.
You and I have touched on some of this before, We will have an opportunity to discuss it again in a more appropriate venue.
Youre not a porcupine and we can always revisit the touchy stuff.
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.I can agree wholeheartedly with you on your comment, Wilderness.
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.
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/"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Should these words be shared in the classroom or not?Divine providence? Who does that come from in your set of beliefs? God? Who is your God and what is his name? Yahweh? El shaddai? Adonai? Jehovah? Allah? Mine is Yeshua.
Sure. Would you also include the prevailing theory then that man can't fly? That the earth is the center of the universe? That the moon produces light by itself? That there is a Hell somewhere below the ground populated by dead people and whipped by Demons and Satan?
It is one thing to teach the beliefs of our ancestors...as beliefs long since proven false, or in some cases unproven true OR false. It is quite another to teach those beliefs as
fact.
Your point is well taken, the example of the Bibles was priceless. Establishmentarians are not interested in freedom of religion more than they are of indoctrination of people toward their religious view. I never fail to wonder what possesses people to need to direct the beliefs of people over so personal and sensitive a matter.
I never fail to wonder what possesses people to need to direct the beliefs of people over so personal and sensitive a matter.
Power and control.
"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??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!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.
I thought he used the Jefferson Bible, which he created as a diest.
Jefferson didn't think of it as a bible. The History Channel did a documentary about it. Talk about ;cut & paste . . . '
GAJefferson didn't think of it as a bible. hmmmm . . .
Historical writings say he thought of his book as a compilation of the best moral proclamations of Jesus of Nazareth—only. And, he wrote it for himself, not as a better "bible." The 'deist' in him left out stuff about the supernatural and miracles, but he did believe in the Christian faith, just not the religion of the church and its priests. Or so Google tells me. ;-)
GAI had the opportunity to see Historian, David Barton, speak at an event and he pretty much describes it in the same fashion. Not sure if David Barton was a part of the History Channel documentary which GA has mentioned, but Mr. Barton has taken letters and memoirs of Thomas Jefferson and turned it into a book. Mr. Jefferson's own words make the case for the spiritual side of this highly intelligent, ever-questioning, complex, individual.
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.
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?"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.
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.
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.
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."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.
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.
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/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.
Hmmm, few other alternatives. I find that statement very intriguing.
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!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?
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Do you think it was ever limited though, wrongly so?
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.
You can check me 10+ years writing here, I am unapologetically conservative, that's the extent of my 'crimes'.
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?"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/How about equal moderation?
JP puts the libs and Twitter into perfect perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T0BQl_zzCEI 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"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.
biden and the rest of the Marxist Democrats are the greatest threat to the United States and to our Constitution.
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.
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?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.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?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?
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.
GAWell 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.
I agree, provided it's within the law and not used for criminal acts.
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?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.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.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?
wilderness, very well spoken. My question then is, are you a pastor, or when d'you become one? Lol!
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.
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.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?
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.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.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...
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.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.
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?
"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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.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.
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.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 ."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.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.We also see millions taking up the cause of BLM, and demanding the defunding of police. Shouldn't they be banned as well?
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.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.
That's the problem with the Marxist Left, their racist stupidity has no limits.
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.
Related Discussions
- 47
Ted Cruz is Nuts: SC should be held accountable to voters?
by Credence2 10 months ago
Ted Cruz and much of the Conservative community have been sore losers, after 2 recent Supreme Court Decisions "threw them under the bus". See brief article below:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/2 … lp00000592Accusing the court of judicial activism, he says that he believes...
- 57
We have a bigger fundamental problem if no one is held accountable...
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
The Trump investigation by Mueller is sign of a much bigger problem with our justice system.If someone like Hillary Clinton who has committed numerous crimes... can be “exonerated” by Comey and the FBI and DOJ, and a Trump who has been investigated for two years and no crime found and no evidence...
- 58
Oath Keepers Throw Trump Under the Bus in Sedition Trial
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
On the Jan. 6 insurrection, they thought they were following Trump's orders to storm the capitol. Here is the good, bad, and the ugly about Roger Stone's connection to these para military groups. Roger Stone was pardoned by Trump...how convenient that was.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics …...
- 382
Donald Trump Supporters/Voters Disenfranchised in Colorado, Who's Next
by Angie B Williams 6 months ago
Which State will be next to decide that their leaders and their State's Supreme Court are more mighty, more powerful than the U.S. Constitution and the Power, which, by design and by LAW, belongs with the American people? That's what this is.....right? A power trip? Let's be the one to outdo all...
- 16
Democrats and others who lied under Oath.
by KC McGee 2 years ago
These are just a few who lied under Oath and got away with it.Bill Clinton.James ClapperJohn BrennenFeel free to list more.
- 57
U.S. Presidential Oath of Office
by Longhunter 12 years ago
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."- Oath of the President of the United States of AmericaIn your opinion, has...