Trump's Actual Campaign Slogan Should Read 'Make America Russia'
Trump aspires to turn the United States into a Soviet-style autocracy with him playing Putin's role here in the states. He already tried to corrupt our elections in 2020 and weave a false narrative that he won when he actually lost. It's evident to many Americans and why he will continue to be defeated at the ballot box.
Will the Democracy issue be his downfall or will it be something else?The sentiment expressed lacks substantial evidence to support your claims. Accusing Trump of aspiring to turn the United States into a Soviet-style autocracy akin to Putin's Russia, in my view, is a hyperbolic and baseless assertion. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that Trump harbors such intentions, and comparing the political systems of the United States and Russia oversimplifies complex political dynamics.
Alleging that Trump attempted to corrupt the 2020 elections and falsely claimed victory without evidence is a contentious and unsubstantiated claim. While there were legal challenges and controversies surrounding the 2020 election, there is no conclusive evidence to support the assertion that Trump actively sought to corrupt the electoral process. Perhaps it is wise to wait for Jack Smith to produce his evidence in court.
Is it also wise to suggest that Trump's defeat at the ballot box is inevitable due to supposed autocratic aspirations and alleged election interference is speculative and ignores the complexities of political campaigns and electoral outcomes? Elections are determined by a multitude of factors, including policy platforms, voter demographics, campaign strategies, and incumbent performance, among others. You may also consider the polls before making such an assertion.
Moreover, attributing Trump's potential downfall solely to the democracy issue overlooks the myriad of other political, economic, and social factors that could influence electoral outcomes.Baseless? Lacking substantial evidence? You're joking right? I would say being indicted by multiple grand juries for the thing being alleged here, makes it the furthest thing from baseless.
The guy's attorney argued in an appellate court that he could get away with ordering the murder of his political opposition as long as he was not convicted in an impeachment. Multiple world leaders have noted their concern with how Trump fawns over Putin when they are at events together.
And there has been plenty of evidence put into the public sphere to support the claim that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election between what Jack Smith has produced, as well as Georgia, and the January 6 Committee. To say that is unsubstantiated ignores much of what is already known. But that is a hallmark of those die-hard Trump supporters, the continued omission of anything damning to Trump. It's a tired ploy, and you might as well avoid my posts if that's going to be the basis for your argument." He already tried to corrupt our elections in 2020 and weave a false narrative that he won when he actually lost. "
I wanted to emphasize that, thus far, no evidence has been presented in a court of law. It will be Jack Smith's responsibility to present evidence in a legal setting, potentially leading to a Supreme Court decision. Despite numerous accusations and media speculation surrounding this case, it's prudent to defer to the legal process for a fair and democratic resolution. Engaging in trial by public opinion is illogical, unfair, and contrary to democratic principles. I firmly advocate for upholding the rule of law rather than resorting to vigilante justice.
It is very clear Trump made claims and still is making claims that the 2020 election was fraudulent. It would seem he will need to make good on his accusations in the Smith Trial.The evidence is everywhere. Trump claims thousands of dead people voted in Georgia to undermine the outcome, something he fabricated. He was corrected that the number was four. Anyone can hear the evidence of his fraud in that example. Three of his lawyers have already pled guilty to their crimes in the Georgia Rico case.
The DC trial will not be about Trump proving 2020 was fraudulent. He had no role in election fraud as one of the candidates. That is a state role and Congressional role.
Yep, that’s the picture that comes over load and clear on this side of the pond.
Our ex-Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) tried not dissimilar tactics in the UK, but in the end was kicked out of Government by his own political Party for consistently lying to Parliament, and then forced by Parliament to resign as a politician for the same crime - if only it was so easy to get rid of bad apples in American politics!Your claims are very odd and absurd. Significantly, Russia, is a Communist country. Which State in America would like or likely support Trump in that? Your state?
Valeant is highlighting that Trump is an autocratic/authoritarian ruler who tries to ride roughshod over democracy e.g. just like Russia, in that Putin is an autocratic/authoritarian ruler who rides roughshod over democracy.
This from a country where you can be put in jail for standing on a street corner and praying?
There are those who are part of the UK and believe the hate speech laws are being used to squash political dissent.Yes. But which States in America, will welcome Trump, in making America, Russia?
What they call the 'red' States; the Republican States.
Then Trump's mindset was to divide America?
I've visited russia when it was the Soviet Union. I have visited it since. I know many russian people.
Trust me when I tell you, the democrat party is acting more like the Polit bureau than any Republican.
The pursuit of a former president on so many bogus charges and lawsuits based on nothing but a desire to keep people from voting for him. This is something the russian government would do and has done.
The democrates are in full swing election manipulation mode and it is obvious.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial.
It is sad what the democrat party has turned into since the 1960s.
Very sad.That you excuse the many alleged crimes of Donald Trump as bogus and civil lawsuits that have been proven as a desire to keep people from voting for him, is his base's own warped fealty.
We all heard the Georgia call pressuring and threatening the Georgia Secretary of State. We know from admission that his surrogates illegally broke into voting machines. We know he spread absurd lies about the amounts of dead people and immigrants who voted to try and sow doubt about his opponent's win. We listened to a Republican elected official debunk those lies. We all watched him organize and incite a crowd to commit an act of domestic terror on his behalf based on those lies. We see the many Americans who lack the critical thinking skills to understand they are being lied to.
That's the truly sad part. That someone so ridiculous has convinced so many to choose him over democracy. That they cannot admit he tried to steal an American election using baseless lies, domestic terror, and theft of voting machine data (that proved nothing by the way) and that he should not be held to account for those attempts. His followers have decided to abandon their faith in our elections and our judicial system to follow an autocrat - it's really that simple.And yet, it is the democrat party that is trying to take away the right of people to vote for the candidate of their choice. That is something done in russia. It is the DOJ and the FBI under the biden administration that has weaponized these federal agencies and used them for the purpose of election interference. Again, this is something you find in russia. The blatant desire to put political opponents in jail on false or bogus charges is another thing done by those in charge of russia.
These are facts.Facts? It was Republicans that sued to get Trump removed from the ballot. Something you cannot ever bring yourself to acknowledge or admit. His own former voters are embarrassed that he attempted to steal an election and used an insurrection to do so. But you make the false claim that it's the 'democrat party.' This is an outright lie.
It was the Republicans in Congress that stated that the courts were the right place to adjudicate Trump's actions surrounding January 6. Or did you also forget Mitch McConnell standing in Congress and telling you that? McConnell clearly saw Trump's election interference and deemed it an issue for the courts since Trump was becoming a private citizen. And those investigations, first by Congress then by the DOJ, started before he announced any intention to seek public office again. That's another thing you can never admit because it's damning to your argument. Private citizen Trump was not a political opponent when the investigations into his many (91 to be exact) crimes started.
Those are the actual facts.And if people want him to be president again, the democrat party should stop all of their election interference.
"Trump holds slight lead over Biden among likely voters, new CBS poll finds"
A recent poll by CBS News found Donald Trump is better equipped to handle the ongoing border crisis than US President Joe Biden.
According to the poll, 72 per cent of registered voters believe Trump’s policies would decrease illegal migrant crossings, while 50 per cent of voters believe migrant crossings would increase under Biden.Still the Democrat party, I see. Like I said, zero acknowledgement that it's members of your own party, well that's not exactly true since MAGA wants anyone not MAGA out of the MAGA party, that brought the actions to get Trump off the ballot. And people wonder why we call it a cult. Even in the face of irrefutable facts, they hold fast to their false beliefs.
And every election, the right in this country campaigns on the border. We saw it in 2020 and 2022, Fox ran so many segments about caravans overrunning the border. It was so odd when the day after the elections, the news about the border just ceased to exist for about another year.
And who cares about the polling? This is another denial of what's actually been happening in recent elections. Democrats are running anywhere between 4-8 points above the polling thanks to the far-right Supreme Court overturning Roe. The current polling is about as accurate as the 2022 red wave and 2020 election fraud. It's really what the MAGA cult needs to think that people actually like their movement. But they are going to get a huge dose of reality in November as the country will rise up for a fourth time to rebuke it, hopefully for the last time as their candidate either goes to the looney bin or the big house."According to the poll, 72 per cent of registered voters believe Trump’s policies would decrease illegal migrant crossings"
Do those people also understand that those policies will be vigorously challenged in court and have little to no chance of being enacted?
Even Trump realized, during his term, that executive orders cannot create the systemic reform warranted by the current broken immigration system.
Trump's post on Twitter June 2018
"CHANGETHELAWS Now is the best opportunity ever for Congress to change the ridiculous and obsolete laws on immigration. Get it done, always keeping in mind that we must have strong border security."
And also..
"As ridiculous as it sounds, the laws of our country do not easily allow us to send those crossing our Southern Border back where they came from,” Trump tweeted on April 2 2018.
Well none of these laws have changed as they require Congressional legislation. Trump's efforts toward immigration reform during his administration all failed, even when he held both the Senate and the house.
How will 2025 be any different?
He acknowledged back in 2018 the following..
"The system has been broken for many years, the immigration system. It's been a really bad, bad system, probably the worst anywhere in the world. We're going to try to
see if we can fix it,"
He didn't fix it though. And today we have Republicans claiming that legislation isn't currently needed, executive orders will take care of our immigration issues but we can plainly see that's not what they used to say.
Trump tweet in 2018 practically begging Congress
"Congress must immediately pass Border Legislation, use Nuclear Option if necessary, to stop the massive inflow of Drugs and People. Border Patrol Agents (and ICE) are GREAT, but the weak Dem laws don’t allow them to do their job. Act now Congress, our country is being stolen!"Then, by that logic, Trump's intention to scuttle the recent bill changing the laws pertaining to asylum was bad.
Exactly. He acknowledged that executive actions were not enough to address the country's immigration issues. But some how Biden is faulted for saying the same!
And on top of that, Trump was never able to get an immigration bill passed... even when Republicans held the house and the senate. Pretty dismal.And yet the border was far more secure under President Donald Trump than at any time under biden.
The pandemic led to sharp drops in immigration to the United States, to levels not seen in decades. On top of that, Trump was able to use title 42 to curb immigration due to the pandemic. Currently there is no justification for title 42 .
A more secure border under trump? Let's look at 2018 before the pandemic hit..
"The surge of migrant families arriving at the southern border has led the Trump administration to dramatically expand a practice President Donald Trump has long mocked as “catch and release.”
"But in recent months, the number of families crossing into the U.S. has climbed to record highs, pushing the system to the breaking point. As a result, the government is releasing families faster, in greater numbers and at points farther removed from the border."
"The numbers are overwhelming right now,” said Gregory Archambault, ICE director of enforcement and removal operations in San Diego. “Everybody is stressed. The agency is stressed, the (local governments) are stressed, the law enforcement agencies. Everybody is stressed because there are these mass numbers of people.”
And then in early 2019..
"authorities stopped more than 109,000 undocumented migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border last month in a wave of unauthorized crossings not seen in over a decade, officials said on Wednesday."
Officials have said if such levels continue, the U.S. will be on track to handle some 1 million undocumented migrants this budget year – almost double of last year’s number.
“The April apprehension levels are again record-setting, and they cause dire concerns for us,” one Homeland Security official said.
"The number of people apprehended at the southern border in just over the past seven months now surpasses last year’s total, as well as every annual total since 2009, according to newly released U.S. Customs and Border protection data."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-a … d=62904545
He really didn't do a great job and then was helped out by covid. The truth of the matter is he acknowledged that Congress needed to make changes but he was unable to see that through. He did nothing lasting or substantial on the border.
https://apnews.com/article/san-antonio- … 02bc43e1d6Donald Trump was president for years before the pandemic hit. He was doing something about it.
President Donald Trump was FAR more successful at handling the southern border situation than biden.He was using catch and release before the pandemic hit. He was also begging Congress to pass legislation. The quoted sources in my previous post were before the pandemic. 2018 & 19 to be exact. It was clear that he was not doing a great job.
He didn't do anything about the border until he was able to enact title 42 due to the pandemic.And yet, even his numbers were rising prior to the pandemic. If by successful, you mean he violated the basic human rights of children by separating them from their parents, then you'd be right. All those people have been granted the ability to remain in the country thanks to Trump's actions.
According to Biden, ALL peoples anywhere have the basic human right to be fed, housed and cared for by the American citizen.
I disagree - do you?Well, I'd like to see the actual quote and not the far-right interpretation of something Biden said. Because as history has shown us in here, we should trust you to repeat something someone else said, accurately, about as much as we should believe Trump's claim that he won all 50 states in 2020.
Testimony showing this administration's problems that have occurred under Biden's surge of unaccompanied children... 85,000 are unaccounted for. I think these facts should be from government officials under oath in front of Congress.
Source https://www.c-span.org/video/?531369-1/ … t-childrenNo, they are not 'unaccounted for.' They were released to vetted sponsors, with the vast majority being a parent or a close family relative living in the United States. That is not unaccounted for.
After these minors are put into the care of a sponsor, the ORR then carries out "safety and well-being" calls to follow-up on the arrangement - calls which sponsors and children are not obligated to respond to.
So what you have, is the latest case of Republicans inventing the worst-case scenario - just like we have seen with them claiming fraud in 2020 because an expansion of mail-in ballot had the potential to lead to more fraud in their eyes, so it just must have happened. Because there was no response to a call that was not obligated to be responded to, the narrative was invented that they were 'missing' or 'unaccounted for.'
https://www.newsweek.com/under-joe-bide … ng-1812728Numerous reports indicate the inability to locate these children. Monthly checks are conducted to monitor those in foster care, yet approximately 85,000 children seem to have evaded oversight. Despite efforts to reach out, calls often go unanswered. Personally, I find the testimony of Federal officials before Congress credible and prefer to rely on their expertise regarding the numerous challenges surrounding undocumented children, rather than recycled narratives from various media sources. I provided a link, hoping you took the opportunity to listen to the insights shared by the officials responsible for unaccompanied children cases.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hItxm4pOZDI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFLw-SLj6m0'Evaded oversight?' Again, the calls are not required to be responded to. Based on the recent government taking children away from their families, not sure I would want to answer any further calls once these children are settled with close family either. The follow-up calls are a courtesy, when in reality the job of the government is done after they are settled with a vetted sponsor. That is the reality of what was testified to. That the far-right in this country sees boogeymen around every corner, without evidence, is more a problem for mental health professionals.
Let's look back to how the Trump administration handled this exact issue back in 2018...
"Twice in less than a year, the federal government has lost track of nearly 1,500 migrant children after placing them in the homes of sponsors across the country, federal officials have acknowledged."
HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley disputed the notion that the children were “lost.”
“Their sponsors, who are usually parents or family members and in all cases have been vetted for criminality and ability to provide for them, simply did not respond or could not be reached when this voluntary call was made,” she said in a statement.
https://apnews.com/united-states-congre … f4b5732f12The most common sense solution is to take back Biden's grand invitation, this would certainly stop parents from sending their children in unaccompanied. You have no idea why these children are sent...
Secure? Who fulfills the role of actually securing the border? The border patrol? How has the border patrol changed to make it less secure?
Readmikenow: "And yet, it is the democrat party that is trying to take away the right of people to vote for the candidate of their choice. "
The Center for Public Integrity, "Twenty-six states — all under Republican control — made access to voting less equal for people of color, younger voters, immigrants, people with disabilities and others following former President Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election defeat, the investigation concluded."
Excellent article about hate speech laws.
"Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.
Clearly, most contemporary proponents of hate-speech laws do not share the same ideologies and methods as the communist states of the day. Yet they seldom mention or reflect upon the fact that such laws were proposed and advocated for by antidemocratic states in which freedom of expression (as well as all other basic human rights) was routinely violated. Nor do they mention that these states, often totalitarian, had a clear interest in legitimizing and justifying their repression with the use of human rights language, inverting human rights protections into coercive human rights obligations. A good example of this paradox is the former Yugoslavia, the scene of the latest European genocide, a state very active in promoting a prohibition against hate speech at the un. Article 134 of the criminal code in force at the time of the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia punished with imprisonment of up to ten years anyone who “incites or fans national, racial, or religious hatred or discord between peoples and nationalities.” The article was mostly used by the communist regime to silence critics, but the prohibition against hate speech obviously did nothing to inculcate a culture of tolerance that could prevent ethnic cleansings and genocide, which occurred throughout Yugoslavia’s breakup."
https://www.hoover.org/research/sordid- … peech-lawsThe real purpose of hate speech laws and their history.
"Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech."
We are now watching history repeat itself.In communist countries like Russia and China, it's not hate-speech laws, it's political oppression of the opposition by the regime.
In simple terms, 'hate-speech laws' are there to protect vulnerable people from harm e.g. to curb racial hatred and prejudice against the disabled and elderly, and women etc. - so in my view 'hate-speech laws' is a good thing.
Although it can have it's amusing moments; such as the chaos in the recent Rochdale by-election:-
A by-election was called in the Rochdale constituency (a safe Labour Seat) because of the death of the Labour MP. But due to the hate laws in the UK the whole thing turned into the weirdest by-election in British History.
THE CANDIDATES IN THE BY-ELECTION:
1. Labour candidate deselected by the Labour Party because of anti-Semitic comments during the election campaign – but it was too late to remove him from the ballot box (and replace him with an official Labour candidate) e.g. standing as an Independent instead.
2. The Green Party also had to deselect their candidate because of historic anti-Islamic comments – Thus the Green party had no official candidate either e.g. he was also standing as an Independent instead.
3. The hard-right wing Reform UK (Brexit) Party candidate (an ex-Labour MP) was surrounded by controversy due to historic sexting allegations e.g. he was previously kicked out of the Labour Party for sexting.
4. The Famous, and controversial, Workers Party Candidate ‘George Galloway’, who is strongly pro-Palestinian (and anti-Semitic) – and who was kicked out of the Labour Party in 2003 for his prominent opposition to the Iraq War.
5. The Conservative candidate was one of the few non-controversial candidates, but rather than campaigning during the by-election decided to go on holiday (vacation) instead!
6. The other non-controversial candidates included the Liberal Democrats, but they decided not to participate in the local high-profile political debate organised by BBC radio?
7. And then there was the Monster Raving Loony Party, and Independent candidates.
In all the Chaos the controversial George Galloway (hard left wing, pro-Palestinian, pro Muslim, anti-Semitic) candidate won a landslide victory in the by-election – And being very vocal, will make his voice heard in Parliament, to the annoyance of Labour - As explained in this short video:
https://youtu.be/VF3frb_pUrkYou live in a country where people can get arrested for standing quietly outside a building. People are arrested for using the wrong pronoun or saying a racial slur. Arrested and put on trial. VERY similar to the Soviet Union. Back in the 1970s you could get arrested in the Soviet Union if you spoke Ukrainian in a public place or outside a government building you could be arrested. You'd be charged with offense against the Kremlin. Then you'd have to pay a fine and be on your way.
You do not have free speech in the UK. I think you don't know what free speech means. The brilliant British writer George Orwell knew this day would come when he wrote "1984." He was a man way ahead of his time.Agreed. They don't have a free press either. And they are shutting down all other Social Media platforms from allowing free speech as well.
Look to the UK and EU, with people's homes being raided for a post online that someone finds offensive, with farmers losing their rights to grow food, all that is coming to America (or has already been brought by the Biden Administration).Ah, yes, 'been brought by the Biden administration.' When things were being removed from social media, it happened during 2020. Please remind us again who was president in 2020...
Just another failed rewrite of history.Really? We don’t have ‘Free Press’ in Britain? It shows how ill-informed you are by your American right-wing propaganda.
Yeah, TV, Radio and the Internet is heavy Regulated by Ofcom (Independent Government Regulator); but FYI their Regulations do NOT extend to the British Press; even when the UK Conservative Government passed into law the ‘On Line Safety Act’ earlier this year, the Press was explicated excluded from the Act, on the grounds of ‘Freedom of the Press’. So get your facts right before you make accusations.
Yeah, your 2nd comment “And they are shutting down all other Social Media platforms from allowing free speech as well.” Is a reference to the above mentioned ‘On Line Safety Act’, which I fully support, albeit introduced by a right-wing Conservative Government that I don’t support.
Online Safety Bill passed by Parliament (A Christian Perspective): https://youtu.be/bxNh0D1GsPk
Yeah, over dramatizing and exaggerating, where you say in the UK “….with people's homes being raided for a post online that someone finds offensive”.
Put it into perspective: If someone makes a major breach of ‘hate crime’ on the Internet (and it has to be quite a major breach), and there has to be legitimate suspicion that that is just the tip of the iceberg of ‘hate crime’ then of course the police may well get a court Judge to issue a ‘search warrant’.
Your post distorts the reality; this link puts it into perspective: https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crimeI recognize you support these efforts, you are an admitted Socialist.
And I would certainly add, a globalist, whether you have said so in the past I do not recall, but your position on things certainly fits.
Even the fact that China owns hundreds of billions of key assets within the UK does not bother you.
You have articulated very well your beliefs and positions... we disagree in what some of these matters portend, what benefits and restrictions they bring, etc.
That is fine, I appreciate the information and perspectives you bring.Yep, I am a socialist and a globalist – spot on; and I am looking forward to the General Election later this year, when ‘all things being equal’ the Conservative Government looks to be facing a humiliating defeat, and potentially Labour (socialists) may well have one of the biggest landslide victories since the 2nd world war.
Yep, I agree with what you say; thanks: Yep America and Europe have (in many ways) radically different social, cultural and political values – And I don’t see anything wrong with that – each to his own.
The world would be a boring place if we all had the same attitudes.
So, I am curious, what do you make of this (below)?
In 2019, John Anderson interviewed Konstantin Kisin. The discussion is transcribed by me. I- is the interviewer and K- is for Konstantin.
K: In Russia last year 400 people were arrested for things that they posted on social media. Obviously this country is very different. How many do you think were arrested in Britain for what they said in social media?
I: ...
K: Take a guess.
I: I've no idea.
K: 3300
I: Really? Arrested for things that they said on social media? ...
---- some replies to that ----
I don't know the source of the 3300 number but here's one relevant data point. Essex local police department reports over 160 arrests per year for "malicious communications". And there are individual reported cases where social media posts are the cause. – Brian Z Dec 15, 2022 at 13:33
The "3,300" figure is likely a reference to a 2017 piece in The Times.
More than 3,300 people were detained and questioned last year over so-called trolling on social media and other online forums, a rise of nearly 50 per cent in two years, according to figures obtained by The Times.
---- end ----
This was in reference to what was occurring before 2020, the lockdowns and additional restrictions placed on Social Media since that time.
This is what you feel is acceptable?
That thousands of people, in a much smaller country than America, are being arrested and prosecuted for using words online in ways deemed inappropriate?
I imagine some require being taken down, banned, and perhaps... if dealing with predators seeking victims online, for instance, even worthy reasons for doing so.
But far too many of the stories I read about, are not in line with that, many people were merely expressing opinions that your government has essentially outlawed.
The majority of Americans (I would not try and speak for all) would not consider what the UK has as Free Speech.Before I answer your question, let’s do some fact-checking first:-
On investigating the web, the root source of the report that your post is based on stems from an article published in the Times on the 12th October 2017 (a British right-wing Conservative newspaper – a good example of the ‘Freedom of the Press’). The article was about ‘cyberflashing', sending death threats and 'epilepsy-trolling' etc.
The Title heading of that Times article reads “Police arresting nine people a day in fight against web trolls”. To put it into perspective - 9 people a day out of an adult population of 53 million is just 0.006% of the adult population arrested each year for ‘hate crime’, thus 99.994% of the adult population are law abiding citizens in that respect.
However, as is always the case, such a report was seized upon and splashed across the Internet by social media platforms including ‘Skeptics Stack Exchange’ amongst many others. As is often the case with social media platforms, Skeptics Stack Exchange is a network of question-and-answer (Q&A) websites on topics in diverse fields. Not a reliable source e.g. answers on such sites should be treated like everything else: check the sources, verify their reliability and draw your own conclusions.
As highlighted by PA Media for example; the comments made by ‘Skeptics Stack Exchange’ (which most of what you quoted is word for word of what Skeptics Stack Exchange said) is flawed for the following reasons:-
• The ‘round robin’ post, post by Skeptics Stack Exchange and across other social media, claimed that in 2017 3,300 arrests had been made in the UK for social media posts, while just 411 had been made in Russia e.g. misinformation (see below)
• What these social media sites did was to compare ‘chalk with cheese’ e.g. there were 411 criminal cases brought against internet users in Russia in 2017, not the number of arrests. Whereas of the 3,395 arrests in the UK only 1,696 people were subsequently charged.
• In Russia, the 411 criminal proceedings did not relate to ‘online malicious communications’; they related to “criminal charges widely used in Russia to stifle critical discussion online”, specifically political oppression. Russian laws are far less interested in protecting its citizens from hate-speech e.g. Russia has a poor ‘human rights’ record.
• Whereas, in contrast the 3,395 arrests, and subsequent 1,696 criminal charges in the UK in 2017, related specifically to ‘online malicious communications’ that’s of a “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character,” including trolling.
• Jail sentences for ‘speech that is protected under international human rights norms’ remains very rare in the UK, but is common place in Russia and China e.g. speech relating to political dissent.
• Not to mention that unlike the UK, the Russian government has blocked access to major foreign social media platforms, and there are well-documented cases of arrests in Russia, following criticism of the Russian government online.
In summary, Russian laws are about enforcing censorship and suppressing political dissent; whereas British laws are about protecting vulnerable people from hate crimes.
COMPARISON WITH AMERICA
You might think 3,395 arrests, and 1,696 subsequent criminal charges per year (9 arrests and 4.5 prosecutions per day) in the UK is unacceptably high: But although the USA prosecutions for hate crime is rare in America, because of weak hate crime laws, hate speech does exists in America; for example in the USA in 2022 there were a total of 11,634 hate crimes reported to the authorities, according to the FBI.
DISTORTED REPORTING ON SOCIAL MEDIA SITES
Where you say “I imagine some require being taken down, banned, and perhaps... if dealing with predators seeking victims online, for instance, even worthy reasons for doing so.
But far too many of the stories I read about, are not in line with that, many people were merely expressing opinions that your government has essentially outlawed.”
Yeah, on rare occasions (less than fraction of 1%) the police are overzealous, and make stupid arrests that should never be made (I’ll not defend the police); but the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) will quickly dismiss such stupid cases e.g. in the UK the police cannot prosecute without the consent from the CPS.
However, although such stupid arrests are rare (a fraction of 1%) it’s only those such cases that gets plastered across social media, giving the false impression that the majority of arrests are unwarranted and silly – rather than putting it into perspective e.g. the 99%+ cases where arrests are warranted and justified NEVER get reported on social media. Cases such as this one below:-
'UK's worst troll' was sentenced to nine years in prison for internet stalking: https://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/sit … t-stalking
In summary (see above link); Over the course of three years, Ms McNeill (aged 73), targeted online four people who had been falsely accused of being involved in a satanic paedophilic cult, promulgating those untrue accusations and causing the victims and their families to suffer death threats, to have to move house and to change their children’s schooling amongst other serious consequences.
I guess in America, Ms McNeill, and people like her, would get away with it scot free because you consider ‘a free for all’ ‘free speech’ far more important than protecting the lives of innocent people.
CHANGES IN HATE CRIME SINCE 2017 IN UK
FYI, there has not been a sharp increase in hate crime in the UK since 2017 in the way that I think you are thinking? However, there was a sharp 50% increase in hate crime in 2017, predominately due to Brexit, and a recent sharp increase in hate crime against British Jews because of the Israel war; and during the lock down during the pandemic there was a spike in domestic violence – none of that should be a surprise though.
USA & UK COMPARISONS
Americans like yourself seem to think that an average of 4.5 people being prosecuted in the UK every day for hate crime is unacceptably high; yet from across the pond we Brits think that your gun violence is insanely mad – and a far, far worse problem than ‘hate speech’:
• USA homicides 2022 = 21,593
• UK homicides 2023 = 590
• USA gun deaths, excluding suicides 2023 = 18,874
• UK gun deaths in 2022 = 26
As you can see from the above, there is no comparison between the UK & USA when it comes to gun violence – the USA is a very violent place.
IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION
Your Question “This is what you feel is acceptable?” in reference to average of 9 people arrested (4.5 people prosecuted) per day for ‘online malicious communications’ that’s of a “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character,” and of which although the vast majority of prosecutions are warranted, social media ONLY highlights the less than fraction of 1% unwarranted arrests, and totally ignore the 99.9% plus of justified cases – giving a distorted picture of reality (misinformation/ disinformation).
So yes, in the context of the above I do feel that it is acceptable.An absolutely wonderful reply, worth the read.
Well done.
The concern here is how that censorship has been used, the Twitter Files, the suppression of Hunter Biden's laptop, and any who spoke of it, is example A for America.
As for the weapons and deaths, I am sure there are other tools of murder that have taken the place of guns in the UK. There are other differences in what the two nations contend with as well, America's large Southern Border for one, what works in one place, does not work in all places.Censorship isn’t a major concern in the UK, for examples:
• Since the early 1990s, policy introduce by the then Conservative Government made UK Governments’ operate under a ‘government transparency code’, to the annoyance of the Conservative Government on several occasions in recent years: A prime example being when in 2018 the Conservative Government tried to hide its report on the economic impact of Brexit from Parliament, Parliament was able to force the Government, through a Court Order, to publish the report in full – to the embarrassment of the Government.
• Because of the Government Transparency policy, all relevant information is regularly published on line, in the public domain e.g. The Office of National Statistics (independent Government Department that is not answerable to the Government) is an excellent source of reliable on a wide range of raw data relating to the economy, deaths, health, homicides etc. etc.
• In 2000 the Labour Government passed the Freedom of Information Act, which as a civil servant at the time; I (and all other civil servants) was involved in implementing in our government Department e.g. deleting and shredding any documents that we didn’t have to legally keep – The National Archive’s (an independent Government Department) was on the ball though e.g. One morning when I went into work I had a phone call from National Archives listing a batch of files that they wanted to have (to keep save), which as luck would have it I happened to have on my desk waiting to be shredded; and as their authority override the authority of the Government Minister in charge of our Department, I had no choice other than post those files to National Archive.
• Many organisations (pressure groups/lobby groups etc.), and political organisation (opposition parties) frequently use their rights under the ‘Freedom of Information’ to gain access to information that the Government would normally not publish.
On the subject of censorship, C4 (British TV Channel) in 1991 was almost prosecuted by the police, as a gimmick to boost viewing figures' ran what they called 'Banned Season' e.g. broadcasting no stop programmes that had been banned. The one programme I watched, which I can remember was entitled 'All about Organisms', but in actual was all about a similar sounding name!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4_Banned_season
The police wanted to prosecute C4, but the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) refused the police consent to prosecute.
In relation to your second point: of the 590 homicides in 2023 in the UK; the methods used for homicide is as follows:
• Knife = 77 deaths
• Hitting/kicking = 33 deaths
• Strangulation = 17 deaths
• Blunt instrument = 11 deaths
• Shooting = 9 deaths
• Poison = 4 deaths
• Burning = 3 deaths
• Others (various) = 42 deaths
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’ve heard all that American right-wing propaganda from you before.
So you are saying that I cannot take a trip down to the city centre (Bristol) with an anti-abortion placard and peacefully protest on the streets in the City Centre – You are wrong, I can peacefully protest about virtually anything, virtually anywhere in the UK, legally – It happens all the time – Haven’t you seen all the pro-Palestine protests across Britain since Oct 2023; 100’s of protests across Britain every month, with tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands attending some of the larger protests:- https://youtu.be/sI5SeXcTp2A
What you are talking about is the old PSPO (Public Space Protection Order) that local governments could apply to the courts for to apply a 150 metre buffer zone around abortion clinics to stop people like Isabel Vaughan-Spruce from intimidating (causing mental stress) to innocent pregnant women going through a traumatic time of getting an abortion.
I say old PSPO’s because, due to the distressed caused to pregnant women getting abortions by the likes of people like Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, on 2nd May 2023 the UK’s right-wing Conservative Government passed a law in England and Wales (the Public Order Act 2023) which introduced legislation to prohibit certain activities within 150 metres of an abortion clinic or a hospital that provides abortion services (“Safe Access Zones”). ‘Safe Access Zones’ protect clinics and ensures that those accessing or providing essential abortion are able to do so free from anti-choice harassment and intimidation.
If you want to peacefully and legally protest against abortion in England and Wales, you have the legal right to do so, just simply stand outside of the ‘Safe Access Zone’.
Yeah, where you say “People are arrested for using the wrong pronoun or saying a racial slur.” yeah, use hate-crime (saying something which causes harm to disadvantaged people, or incite others to cause harm) then yeah, you do risk being arrested – And that’s the way it should be e.g. the laws that protect vulnerable groups, such as the disabled, ethnic minorities, women, old people etc. from prejudice and racism etc. – That’s how it should be.
Yeah, you and Ken and other right-wing Americans keep saying we don’t have ‘free speech’ and we “don’t know what free speech means” – But you are wrong – We do have free speech, but in the EU & UK it’s not a ‘free for all speech’ where you are free to ‘harm’ others with prejudice and racism –
That sort of free speech that allows ‘carte blanche’ (anything goes) so that you can mentally hurt (harm) other people different to you, such as Jews, Muslims, blacks etc., by what you say and how you say it, is the American way – not the European way.
In Europe, we have far more respect for people different to ourselves.In Europe you don't have the concept of free speech. To arrest a person for and put them on trial for a racial slur is very dictatorial. It stands to reason because Europe has a history of releasing on the world some of the worst dictators the world has ever known.
As history has proven, hate speech laws are designed to quash free speech.
These laws are being used in very bad ways all throughout Europe.Why is it wrong to “….arrest a person for and put them on trial for a racial slur is very dictatorial” if their ‘verbal abuse’ is ‘likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress’?
Anyone causing ‘harassment, alarm, or distress’ should be punished – that’s not dictatorial, that’s just protecting innocent people from harassment, alarm, or distress’.
You accuse Ken of being ignorant about Ukraine, but you seem to be just as ignorant about certain matters in the EU & UK: FYI, contrary to what you seem to be suggesting – in the UK ‘Not all hate incidents will amount to a criminal offence’.
FYI: There are 3 main types of hate crime (listed below) - the last two of which carries a lesser penalty than the first, would be relevant to hate crimes on Social Media:
• Physical assault
• Verbal abuse
• Incitement to hatred
FYI: In the UK, the maximum penalties for verbal abuse related to hate crimes vary depending on the specific offense. For example, under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (passed by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government in 1986): “Behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress (threatening or abusive words or behaviour only): The maximum penalty is a fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for up to six months.
As I said above: “Anyone causing ‘harassment, alarm, or distress’ should be punished.”
Typical American right-wing propaganda, saying “As history has proven, hate speech laws are designed to quash free speech.”, and “These laws are being used in very bad ways all throughout Europe.” –
Hate speech laws are not designed to quash free speech; that’s just a load of hogwash; hate speech laws are there to protect innocent vulnerable people from harm. You seem to be getting it confused with ‘political suppression of political opposition parties in dictatorial counties like China and Russia, and historically, Hitler’s suppression of the communist party in Germany in the late 1930s, when he was making a power grab.
I guess, where you say “Europe has a history of releasing on the world some of the worst dictators the world has ever known.” you are referring to dictators like Hitler and Mussolini – Hitler didn’t use “hate speech to quash free speech”, Hitler was one of the worst offenders of hate speech, in his quest to persecute the Jews.
Run, Trump, run. It's not 'make America Russia'. Run and make America First again.
Trump's inauguration speech, 'America First', is an epic great. No president in America history has put the country foremost before anything else. And whether Americans are going to vote Trump, or biden or his replacement, that's up to every American. The USA is presently a shadow.
Today's news (or was it yesterday) declared an Indian-American as the winner against Trump from Washington DC. I wonder how Trump patted his back with a sarcastic take on that defeat.
It was DC ... less than 2,000 voters total partook.
After doing some quick research on the writers who most often post on these discussion boards, it seems most have not posted an article on this site in months or years (myself included).
It also seems many "comments" could actually be articles due to their length and documentation. This trend makes me wonder if we spend our time on the discussion boards instead of writing articles because what we really want is feedback, which HP no longer offers to articles?
Personally, I can't remember the last time an article came up in the HP que that caught my attention enough to take the time to read. But the discussions do. I realize I'm chasing a rabbit here, (apologies Valeant) but I would love to know if anyone else is having the same experience?Yep, one of the motivational things about writing articles here was the interaction in the comments section.
I didn't even bother with the earnings aspect of it until a couple of years in, and then, more out of curiosity to see how it worked.
One of my first articles, if not the first, was a heavily researched investigative article into Benghazi and what really happened. It wasn't until years after I wrote that article that much of what was written became common knowledge.
I was obsessed with finding the truth because it hit so close to home to some of my own experiences, I wanted to put it into article form so I could share it.
I think it was cathartic for me in some ways, the only other time I dug deeply into anything like that was our entry into the Ukraine war and where they were planning on taking it... again, because the lies and corruption really ate at me. But instead of articles, there were loads of posts in these forums.
Comments were definitely a motivating factor to writing most articles.
Part of that original article 10.02.12
What is also clear, is we will not find out the truth about the matter until after the election, I do however, have some suspicions... Benghazi isn't what it seems at all, the more information that comes out, the more it doesn't add up.
What is going on is a lie, to protect a lie, to protect a deception. The more digging that is done the more this is looking like some type of CIA Covert Operation gone bad.
Reasons why I think this:
Looking at what occurred on the night of Sep 11, 2012, and moving forward...
1) No standards adhered to - no Security detachment to protect the Ambassador, no standard Gov issue vehicles, inadequate compound security measures, etc.
2) Just before the attack, Ambassador Stevens had finished meeting with a Turkish Ambassador (at around 9 pm).
3) On Sep 14, the Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … had docked in Turkey.” and then "more than 80 per cent of the ship's cargo…has been moved into Syria." The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.
4) Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.
5) The ship’s captain was ”a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government, he also has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
6) A Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade, had been charged with providing local security to the consulate in Libya. This was what the State Department was depending on to protect Ambassador Stevens. The 'commander' of the February 17 Brigade, Fawzi Bukatef, is a member of Libya’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
7) It is the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Syria that received at least part of the weapons shipment. In a NY Times article from June, it was stated "that a small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood."
8) The origins of the 'riots' and attacks on our Embassies began in Egypt, which is under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood. In each step, from where and when the riots began, to who was supposed to be providing protection to the Ambassador, to the Captain of the ship, to those who received the weapons... the Muslim Brotherhood had a presence in every step of it.
Why were the CIA calls for support denied? Why were the Navy Seals told to stand down? Why was the 'normal' security for the Ambassador sent packing weeks prior? Was the Obama Administration afraid that news of them supplying SA-7s to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria would get out? Were they afraid they might kill some of their Muslim Brotherhood allies in an effort to save American lives?
We will likely never get the truth.
Nice trip down memory lane, thanks.
This tangent interests me. I stopped writing political articles because they kept banning me for ridiculous reasons. So I lost interest in publishing here. I was publishing around 14 articles a year, with most getting picked up by their network sites.
A great segment from Brian Tyler Cohen about how the right loses it's mind because Taylor Swift encourage people to...exercise their rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RroI-Wb0wu0" No president in America history has put the country foremost before anything else." Your limited knowledge of American history is excusable and understandable. But this comment is simply untrue. Many, many of our presidents made huge personal sacrifices to serve their country. Read some of their biographies. Trump will be remembered for many things. Making sacrifices will never be one of them.
If you had take me into context that 'The USA is presently a shadow' then you'll know what I mean. Other presidents right from George Washington have done well. John Adam. Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. James Monrne, and John Q. Adams. And of course Trump can't beat Andrew Jackson in clearing the National debt. So each president done his best. Trump in reality put America as a people above all else.
That's your trouble. You don't really like Trump. I do. I'm an outsider. But they's a guy here as one of you who take it to over look all the negative labels cast on Trump, and decide he'll vote for hi again. Congratulation to the dude.
The St. Louis Dispatch is in the Donald Trump is an autocrat camp as they wrote an editorial out today:
"Even among the many Republicans out there who recognize Trump’s obvious unfitness for office, there will be a strong temptation to fall back on partisan muscle-memory and vote for him anyway," before adding, "Republicans and conservatives of good conscience who can’t bring themselves to vote for President Joe Biden — fine — should at least consider any alternative that doesn’t give a vote to this unstable, malicious man and his dangerous movement."
Getting to the point, the board wrote that there are reasons to be fearful of Biden's advanced age, but a vote for Trump should be beyond the pale.
"Say this for Biden, though: He’s not an indicted alleged criminal, a civilly liable rapist, a divisive demagogue or an anti-constitutional aspiring autocrat. Trump is all of these things. He belongs nowhere near power," the board wrote.
Related Discussions
- 304
Trump's Criminal Trials
by J Conn 2 days ago
The country will get at least one verdict before the November election. The New York Hush Money/Election Interference case is set to kick off on March 25. Trump attorneys attempts to get charges dropped and the case delayed were struck...
- 43
What Will Happen to America If Trump Litigates His Way to a 2nd Term?
by Allen Donald 43 hours ago
There are two separate questions really:1. What if Trump successfully proves that the election was fraudulent?2. What if Trump does not prove that the election was fraudulent, but is able to gain a 2nd term because one of his political appointees makes it so?3. What if Trump does not prove fraud...
- 12
What does uncontested elections mean? Does it matter? Democracy?
by Tim Mitchell 2 weeks ago
Analysis of uncontested elections, 2024 by Ballotpedia https://ballotpedia.org/Analysis_of_unc … E7DC8C18A4"An uncontested election is one where the number of candidates on the ballot is less than or equal to the number of seats up for election. Candidates running in uncontested...
- 56
The Trump Presidency
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
Do you believe that the Trump Presidency will eventually............EXPLODE.......or......IMPLODE? Why? Why not?
- 54
Trump is Immoral and an Outlaw
by Mike Russo 11 hours ago
This is based on my observations.CNN has a split screen this morning. On the left side is the Supreme Court arguing over if Trump has absolute immunity as president. On the right side of the screen is the ongoing trial with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Last week they were covering...
- 54
Trump Supporters Storm Capitol Building at Trump's Urging.
by Allen Donald 3 years ago
This is your President:a man who claims fraud in the 2016 election and organizes a committee to find fraud which fails and disbands.a man who again claims fraud in the 2020 election before the election even happens and does not commit to the peaceful transfer of power.a man who claims fraud after...