The Politics Megathread

[EOTFOFYL]

@M0NST3R
Mosley: Lmao this guy has one of the worst luck in political history.

Mussolini: SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

 

[kavvka]

blah blah blah blah politics.

anyone else waiting for joe biden to shit himself or go full dementia irt on national tv?

the former almost came to be once (weeeet fart noise during an interview) and the latter already has happened several times (cornpops, unoblackifunovoteforme etc) but unfortunately didn't get too much exposure.

 

[M0NST3R]

@EOTFOFYL Why the hell is Mussolini so bad at writing? I managed to slog through his essay where he "Defined Fascism" (You really aren't missing anything if you haven't read it) and all I could think of was how he would unironically be a model politician in America today. 30 pages of absolutely nothing and he gets called a political mastermind.

 

[EOTFOFYL]

A man who built up the Italian Empire into a respectable European power only to send it crashing down; notable achievements include suppression of the Sicilian mafia and industrialization. He may not have been a political mastermind but he certainly made shit happen.

 

[M0NST3R]

You know what, fair enough. Though it's hilarious that he gets overshadowed by litterally every other European fascist when you get to the literature.

 

[rh75]

I think people need to start wondering what the 90,000 ton gorilla in the room will do if things go hot.
Right now the military can sit back and not get involved because everything is cold; just tech giants being asses and same with politicians.
However, once you try to start rounding up people for the 'good of the country,' isolating those that disagree with you, and accidental discharges start happening things can start moving that we don't want to move.
The military's oath is to protect the Constitution of the United States from foreign and domestic threats, and despite what many people think the military are not robots. A fragmented military means every politician can be targeted and taken out, and the same with every tech giant. Precision weapons change everything.
I pray that doesn't happen, but I don't have much hope.
Hot wars have been started over accidents.

 

[Chrona]

1c. Obama didn't ask people to march on the capitol.

Yes we know. He's asking you to construct a hypothetical in your head of what would happen if twitter had banned and blocked Obama during his presidency. If your justification is "he didn't do anything worth being banned over" than you're dodging the point. Should or should not a private company have the ability to displace a government figure from a channel of communication?

Let me put it another way, which should the man with access to Nuclear Launch Codes lose first: The ability to post on social media, or his access to Nuclear Launch Codes?

 

[Tamerlane]

1a. Start by promoting critical thinking in the education system instead of gutting it.

I agree but I don't see how it's relevant, though they already do promote critical thinking, that doesn't mean teachers actually do it and that doesn't mean that people know how to use it. It's like teaching creativity, in that it's incredibly difficult to do unless you are really good at understanding human psychology and applying that to pedagogy.

1b. Oddly enough, 1st amendment does not apply to private entities.

Depends on the circumstances. In Marsh v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that the company town, given it's power and size, that it must protect the rights of its citizens as a government would, and therefore would have to defend the first amendment rights of its citizens, and more recently a federal court ruled that social media counts as a public forum, and therefore Trump can not block people to prevent them from accessing public information, which implies that Twitter should not have the power to wantonly censor or ban people for their views.

Note also that there is a clear difference between a small or private business removing a customer causing issues, or firing an employee for what they said on the job to a customer, and the practice of these social media companies which deliberately target specific individuals to deplatform specifically because of their views, even if they have not violated the terms of service which grow increasingly out of hand. Not to mention that these companies have a large amount of overlap of workers and ideological homogeneity, and so they all tend to remove the same people for the same reasons, which only leads to the net result of censorship across platforms.

Think about it like this: if every business, store, and person targeted a specific individual for their beliefs, and told them that they were not allowed to get service there, then it is oppression as the collective actively discriminates against the minority party in question. It is an injustice, however you slice it.

You may think that this situation is absurd, until you realize that it is very real in certain East and West African countries, in which children are branded as Witches, and so are ostracized from the general community and denied access to food, water, etc. out of fear that the people will be associated with Witchcraft.

Spoiler

In my opinion, under the 14th amendment, you have a right to equal protection, which means that you have a right not to be discriminated against for your beliefs, race, gender, religion, or ideas. When multiple companies collude to deny you of their service because of the beliefs you hold, it is an infringement on the first amendment because it means that you are not allowed to express those ideas without a disproportionate consequence in response to the "thoughtcrime."

I make no qualms in saying I am on the political left, and so I generally find myself against large corporations and big business for a variety of reasons, however, the most important principles I hold is the right to free expression within society. By censoring voices, you not only deprive the person of their right to speak but of their audience the right to hear. It does not change their minds, or change their views to not engage with them, rather, it further isolates them from wider society and radicalizes them as they are not able to engage or participated in the same functions everyone else did.

Tell me, where does this line end? Can your bank account get closed because of your political views, preventing you from accessing your own money? Can your grocery store prevent you from buying food and other necessities out of fear of being associated with you? Can you be refused the right to buy a home for yourself or rent an apartment solely on the grounds you hold an opinion that they do not wish to be associated with? Or, should we have protections in place to stop this injustice at its roots, ensure the right of every American from the increasing tyranny of large, unaccountable businesses? You may say this is a slippery slope, but again, it has happened, as you see above, and it can happen very easily.

Without the ability to express controversial, offensive, or heretical opinions against the status quo, society can never advance, and will only stagnate as it judges itself with increasing purtiainism and the inability to challenge, debate, and propose new ideas that could threaten the orthodoxy. It is the death of democracy, the end of freedom and liberty by removing the primordial, inalienable right intrinsic to all people within this nation.

The more power an entity has, the more we must make it so the social contract applies to its walls. They provide a good or service, and we provide them with our time, attention, or use of their platform. Nothing less, nothing more, and if the person involved has done nothing illegal, I see no reason why they do not have a right not to be denied service in this way.

1c. Obama didn't ask people to march on the capitol.

Trump just said that there would be a protest on the 6th, and he did not incite people to riot nor to storm the building. If you listen to his speech, he never once said for the mob to do anything immoral or illegal. You can not use this point against Trump when he's openly said he does not support what they did, and told them to stand down when things were getting out of hand.

Even then, this does not justify Twitter banning him for doing nothing illegal, as they do not have the right to silence a sitting president from talking to the American people. No matter what justification you have, there is no reason by which this can be allowed to stand, as it is not only blatant power-grab.

If they do not care about the man who is the leader of the free world, on the seat of the world hegemon, and commander and chief of the military, it means they can censor anyone for anyone reason whatsoever with no accountability or means of redress by the public.

Any justification for this is not one that warrants this amount of social power and influence. It is that of an aristocrat or a king.

2a. Believing the election is fraudulent does make it true, acting on unverified information is dumb.

When you have been stonewalled by the vast majority of courts from having a fair trial that is on the merits of the case, prevented from speaking about it online, not given a fair stance by the media, and have been actively discriminated against by every major institution, it is only natural you operate from the information you have and the information you have is sufficient to at least call a non-biased investigation into the claims that is transparent and open to the public.

It was dismissed before it was given legs to stand on as a case, discriminated against by very conceivable metric and never given the time of day, despite large enough inconsistencies and circumstantial evidence to indicate extreme fraud.

And if you'd actually look at the evidence, I'd argue that it is enough in merit that dismissing it out of hand questions your ethos alone unless you have a damn good argument against it. And because we haven't had a proper trail for this and only had to go off of appeals to authority and trust that what the people WHO ARE BEING ACCUSED are saying are true, it's fair to doubt.

Even then, when half then beliefs the results are dubious and properly fraudulent, then even if it's not true, it's your jobs as representatives of the people to investigate their interests and make sure that nothing dubious is actually happening, otherwise you have neglected your duties of office to represent the interests of the American people and their concerns.

Also, who's job is it to "verify" this? Who is the arbiter of truth in society and dictates what is correct and incorrect? Because damn would that person have a lot of unjustified power in and of themselves.

2b. The extension is sanctioned by the Court.

Which it didn't have the power to do constitutionally. In order for those mail in votes to be accepted, it would have to go through the vote in the state legislature before going on the ballot in THIS ELECTION for a referendum with the voters. What happened was not legal and outright violated the rule of law in Pennsylvania.

2c. Still waiting for that 'smoking gun' to show up in some form....

This is the problem with your thinking. You're not going to get one big piece of evidence like with Watergate and Nixton's phone call. It was very clearly a mostly decentralized process, and it was probably by multiple means that voter fraud was committed in various very specific places. It's not one thing that can be called into doubt, but death by a thousand cuts by which you could call the entire thing into question across various locations with overarching trends and patterns that would indicate impropriety. The "smoking gun" strawman is one you applied specifically to me and demanded of me.

Even if I had the smoking gun, there is no way that I know for certain you'd even believe it, or if you would try and justify it or excuse it by some other means without actually weighing the credit on the evidence.

[url-"https://hereistheevidence.com/"]Again I link this site [/url]because it's the best collection of pieces of evidence. It's all of this evidence in totality that definitely indicates the election was fraudulent or at least very, very improperly carried out to such a degree that the entire thing can be called into question.

3a. They want to see it changed into THEY want it, not what WE want.

Who is this "we"? And how do you know that it encapsulates as many people as you think it does?

Also, this is completely irrelevant to my argument, because that portion was meant to be me arguing what was going on from their prospective and how it differs from a hypernationalist one, not whether or not I endorse all of their opinions. The only thing I think that united EVERYONE that group was that they believed the results of the election were dubious or fraudulent, and that they were generally pro-Trump and anti-establishment, though there were overarching trends in the protest and more accurate terms for the people it applied to.

Don't turn this into an "us and them" narrative, when it's not and I was more arguing from my best understanding what their prospective would be.

@EOTFOFYL

 

[EOTFOFYL]

@Tamerlane
1a. Brain dumping has backfired as now I have no bloody clue what the context behind thr first one is. Oops.
2a. The only entity that can decide what's unconstitutional or not is the Supreme Court.
3a. Okay there's too much to unpack here and this is already eating into my precious reading and sleep time so I'll just focus on the one fucking recursion here...

Witness testimony accounts for upwards of 90% of evidence in evidentiary hearings

Cool, this is worthless. Anyone can bullshit their way through, so what's this 10% others? That sounds way more interesting.

No election contest in American history has had 923 citizens stake their personal freedom on sworn testimony to attest to irregularities and legal issues.

...That.... doesn't mean anything.

When an election lawsuit is dismissed, it is blocked from having an evidentiary hearing, thus preventing the evidence from being presented in a court of law.

Without a lawyer explaining why this is the way it is I cannot assume there is malice in the decision.

Georgia did have two recounts that used similar procedures to the original count and did not address the legal issues brought by fact witnesses, nor follow the U.S. Election Assistance Commission guidelines.

Now this is infuriating, WHAT FUCKING LEGAL ISSUE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WHAT GUIDELINES DID THEY NOT FOLLOW? Am I suppose to nod my head and pretend I know?

BALLOT INTEGRITY PROCEDURES

Ballot Integrity Procedures and Laws are part of every modern democracy to ensure election integrity.

Water is wet.

89% of European democracies banned absentee voting to resident citizens, while 100% require Photo ID for any form of voting to prevent targeted fraud.

That's... nice to know... Why is this relevant?

37 states in the US altered their absentee/mail-in ballots Ballot Integrity Procedures for 2020 Presidential Election.

Yeah, no shit Sherlock. There's a pandemic and nobody wants corona.

The altered Ballot Integrity Procedures reduced the rate of illegal ballots caught by Officials this election. With the same Ballot Integrity Procedures as 2018, swing states would have found upwards of 30x more illegal ballots.

Again....who, what, where, when, why, how? And why the fuck is this listed as a fact?

Vice President Biden’s margin of victory in 4 swing states appears to rely on the altered Ballot Integrity Procedures these states enacted for this election.

Wow, higher turn out rate because voting is more accessible, who knew?

A court in Arizon had two handwriting expert witnesses evaluated the signatures on 100 random absentee ballots. The Republican expert witness found 6% of signatures on the 100 ballots where problematic. The Democrat expert witness found 9% of signatures on the 100 ballots where problematic

From the linked Court document, assuming all other cases is like this I'm not surprised at the results.

Plaintiff brought this “election contest” without a good-faith basis, asking the Court to
allow inspection of a “sampling” of ballots so she can try to find errors. Even after the Court
granted her requested discovery, she asks the Court for “further inspection.” In the alternative,
she asks the Court to either throw out the entire election or declare the Trump Electors elected
instead. Plaintiff’s request to invalidate the will of Arizona voter’s is serious, and it must fail.
First, Plaintiff’s complaint that her party’s observers didn’t get to sufficiently observe
certain steps in the process is barred by laches. Even if Plaintiff had a right to the level of
observation she wants, she could have raised that issue long ago, and failed to do so.
Second, Plaintiff fails to allege any “misconduct,” fraud, or “illegal votes,” let alone any
facts to suggest that these issues would have any effect on the outcome of the presidential
election. Indeed, the crux of Plaintiff’s claim now seems to be that bi-partisan election workers
made a few errors when duplicating ballots, which could not have possibly altered the results.
Third, Plaintiff’s requested relief is both extreme and unavailable. An election contest
must rest on facts, not speculation and conjecture aimed at undermining the hard work of Arizona’s election officials. In the end, Plaintiff’s vague allegations do not warrant allowing Plaintiff’s request to re-count ballots or, worst of all, invalidate 3.42 million Arizonans’ votes.....For all these reasons, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and award the Secretary her attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 for being forced to continually respond
to frivolous litigation filed by Plaintiff and her allies.

Last part made me laugh.
TLDR: You didn't bitch about it before so why now? Why are you not presenting any evidence when asked to? We don't act on bullshit. Done? okay now please bugger off.

Vice President Biden would likely not maintain his victory in Arizona if the Ballot Integrity Procedures had caught the estimated problematic ballots.

Conjecture, not a fact. Why is this even labeled as such?

IRREGULARITIES IN THE OFFICIAL DATA

Oh for fuck sakes referencing your own database which anyone can submit is not very convincing. I'm also close to hitting Mangadex word limit and there's a crap ton of bullet points so I'll leave it that for later date.

As laid out in the Texas lawsuit,...

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue

And this is pretty reasonable.

 

[Ceildric]

 

[YumoYumo]

Seething with hate randoms who drop here occasionally just to shit on America, both sides.

@Halo I've found a Wally!(Myself)
Nice summarise, mate. But you're still a disgusting heretic for posting Astolfo pic with tits.

@Ceildric the cyberpunk happened now, in 2021, not 2077. Let's welcome our corporate masters.


It's funny how left-turds are okay with censorship just because it does not hit them. For now.


The only Shitsoft game I would play.

 

[YumoYumo]

Btw. I thought Trump gave up. Why the shit is still stirring?

 

[Ceildric]

@YumoYumo

Trump has not conceded, at least not in any crystal clear, unequivocal fashion.

The closest he has come has been saying there will be a peaceful transition, which is certainly suggestive, though could be chalked up to trying to avoid being blamed for anymore violence, or further painted as a dictator. Some have put forth evidence that seems to suggest the last video or two published are deep fakes.

Plus, regardless of whether Trump gives up or not, this is now bigger than him or even the question of election fraud (though that obviously remains a massive issue). Years of mounting double standards, hypocrisy, disenfranchisement, and outright hate are coming to a head. People are demanding that the rules of society be applied consistently, with the same standards of behavior expected of all.

There is no doubt an economic element to this all too. Americans, especially those outside of big cities, have been hurt by the off-shoring of jobs, especially blue collar jobs. This has been magnified greatly by the pandemic. People living in big cities and/or comfortable moving around with no strong roots, and with jobs that allow for remote work in an increasingly digital economy survive or even thrive. Meanwhile people that have stronger attachments to their homes / communities, who rely on local work, and who often work more blue collar or old-fashioned white collar jobs are being left behind. And to rub salt in the wound they have been openly and continuously mocked as stupid for their traditional values.

 

[Chrona]

@YumoYumo
Why did you think it would stop after Trump capitulated?

 

[BroederTrapist]

Question :
What's the difference between the US Capitol and Mordor?

Answer:

Spoiler

 

[YumoYumo]

What's the difference between the US Capitol and Mordor?

@BroederTrapist The Movie ends in Mordor. But in Capitol it only begins (I hope).
@Chrona who would lead Trump-cucks if not the main cuck himself?

 

[2SpiritCherokeePrincess]

Segregation in the 20th century: Woolworths doesn't want to serve minorities; whites-only bathrooms. Segregation in the 21st century: Hobby Lobby doesn't want to serve homosexuals or Jews; cisgender-only bathrooms.

 

[EOTFOFYL]

@2SpiritCherokeePrincess

 

[justforthelulz]

^Context: This 2017-2018 case that literally went all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[Chrona]

@EOTFOFYL
@justforthelulz
1. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission legal argument is concerning free exercise of religious belief. If you're arguing that Twitter is banning Trump on religious grounds and not political ones, I suppose it would be relevant, but I sincerely hope and assume you don't actually believe that to be the case.

2. Even if it were relevant assuming religious belief was involved, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not broadly resolve the issue concerning the intersection between Freedom of Expression of Religious Belief, and Rights Preventing Discrimination. This was plainly stated in the results. It was not and is not meant to resolve this issue. So even if religious grounds were involved, that case does not resolve it.

The relevant part of legal literature for this has nothing to do with that court case, and instead involves 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material .

@YumoYumo

who would lead Trump-cucks if not the main cuck himself?

Obviously whoever takes up the reins of populism in his place. Did you think the type of people to follow Trump are reasonable?

@2SpiritCherokeePrincess
Isn't 21st century segregation Black only mandatory college courses?