2020 Election
Quote: TomGQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: TomGQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: TigerWuI don't consider myself a liberal Democrat, but I did find this interesting article about borders.
Stopped reading when the said the USA has a POTUS promoting closed borders.
I love that you're suggesting Trump is promoting Mexicans and foreigners to flood into our country without any check-points.
What on earth are you talking about?
You went out of your way to advertise to everyone that you stopped reading the article when it said Trump promoted closed borders. That suggests you were turned off by the idea that Trump would promote closed borders.
No, it means I was turned off by the publisher using weasel words to promote their agenda and disguising it as journalism. Which I said above.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, it means I was turned off by the publisher using weasel words to promote their agenda and disguising it as journalism. Which I said above.
I love that you think "closed borders" are "weasel words". That's something the US always had long before Trump ever entered politics. And when he did enter politics, he built his entire campaign on it. What do you think about words like "I will build a great wall"?
-----
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
This says that "weasel words" are words that are vague and ambiguous and can be bent in any way the author wants. In the article that you refused to read, the authors give very clear definition of what they mean by open borders, ("system that allows for people to pass through borders without checks, proof of anything, or allowance to enter another country"). Again, I love that you are so bothered by the idea that Trump would be on the opposite side of that.
Quote:federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that President Trump is not allowed to block people on Twitter over statements he does not like, affirming a lower court's decision that declared the president's account a "public forum."
Goody.
Quote: TomGI love that you think "closed borders" are "weasel words". That's something the US always had long before Trump ever entered politics. And when he did enter politics, he built his entire campaign on it. What do you think about words like "I will build a great wall"?
-----
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
This says that "weasel words" are words that are vague and ambiguous and can be bent in any way the author wants. In the article that you refused to read, the authors give very clear definition of what they mean by open borders, ("system that allows for people to pass through borders without checks, proof of anything, or allowance to enter another country"). Again, I love that you are so bothered by the idea that Trump would be on the opposite side of that.
Love whatever you like, it is weasel words. most every country in the world has closed borders by that standard. The EU nations have ceded much of their national sovereignty as to internal borders, with many other things. If you come in from outside, say the USA, you still get checked.
What the article is calling "closed borders" is just NORMAL BORDERS. They use the weasel word "closed" to push an agenda. Those of us who think more critically and independent can easily see this. Few nations have "closed borders" anymore. Albania used to have them. From time to time, KSA closed the border to most but not all visitors. The USA, OTOH, is far more easy to get inside.
It is just a smear tactic, using words in a negative way to smear Trump and push their agenda. Perhaps the college freshmen will fall for it. I do not. And we, or at least I, am done here on the subject.
Quote: rxwineGoody.
Lefties should be careful what they wish for. This opens FB and other sites to being called a "public forum."
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat the article is calling "closed borders" is just NORMAL BORDERS ....
And then it went on to describe the countries that had different borders and list them. Which was the only agenda of the article. To consider that a smear tactic just goes to show how deep the victim mentality can run.
Open / closed; hard / soft; normal / abnormal. Going so far out the way to make that the focus of the article is just a way to weasel out of having to think about or analyze anything that goes against a persons very narrow and rigid vision of the world.
Most countries have closed borders. For a variety of reasons, some do not. Here they are. To discredit the authors for doing that as an attempt to smear Trump just shows how weak and vulnerable that man really is.
Quote: TomGI love that you think "closed borders" are "weasel words". That's something the US always had long before Trump ever entered politics. And when he did enter politics, he built his entire campaign on it. What do you think about words like "I will build a great wall"?
The pre-Trump borders were totally useless for more than 20 million illegal immigrants.
Quote: AZDuffmanLefties should be careful what they wish for. This opens FB and other sites to being called a "public forum."
That'd be great. If a conservative commentator on Facebook is declared a public forum and can't block all his critics, absolutely wonderful, IMO,
Quote: rxwineThat'd be great. If a conservative commentator on Facebook is declared a public forum and can't block all his critics, absolutely wonderful, IMO,
More like FB and others cannot continue their bias against conservatives, where the real problem is. IOW, a liberal site cannot block critics of their positions.
Quote: AZDuffmanMore like FB and others cannot continue their bias against conservatives, where the real problem is. IOW, a liberal site cannot block critics of their positions.
Dude, seriously, I hope your road to VictimHood is at least paved, but that would require some government assistance and we all know "you didn't build that."
Facebook is a platform, not a publisher. Twitter is a platform, not a publisher.
If you don't like it, create your own social media PLATFORM with different TERMS OF SERVICE that have to be AGREED to in order to use the PLATFORM.
Quote: SteverinosDude, seriously, I hope your road to VictimHood is at least paved, but that would require some government assistance and we all know "you didn't build that."
Facebook is a platform, not a publisher. Twitter is a platform, not a publisher.
If you don't like it, create your own social media PLATFORM with different TERMS OF SERVICE that have to be AGREED to in order to use the PLATFORM.
Victimhood? Hardly. FB does not affect much in my life. I don't cry that I cannot succeed because of FB. Yes, a platform. Same as Twitter, which the court has ruled on.
FWIW, if and when someone does start a good competitor to FB they will lose a huge slice of their users. People are tired of their bias in what they consider "community standards."
Victimhood? What on earth are you talking about?
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe pre-Trump borders were totally useless for more than 20 million illegal immigrants.
Of the 20 million pre-Trump illegal immigrants, only six to seven million of them came through the border illegally. The others either came through legally and overstayed their visas, or never existed because there were only 11 million of them in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States
I commend you for not letting facts get in the way of making a point. That's one of the most important rules in politics.
Quote: TomGOf the 20 million pre-Trump illegal immigrants, only six to seven million of them came through the border illegally. The others either came through legally and overstayed their visas, or never existed because there were only 11 million of them in 2016:
The problem with open borders is that we don’t know who is coming in. There is no control. We don’t know how many of them are terrorists, or murderers, or robbers, or rapists. We don’t know how many of them are carrying deadly diseases. At least with visas, the people are identified, and their information entered into a database. Undesirables are denied entry.
If anyone overstays their visa, the government knows who they are. They can be deported more easily.
According to this Yale-MIT Study, there were 22 million illegals living in the U.S. in 2016. Twice the 10.7 million quoted by Wikipedia.
"The mean of the 2016 distribution is 22.1 million, which we take as the best overall estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants based on our modeling approach and current data."
As far as visa overstayers outnumbering illegal border crossers: No
“In particular, approximately 41% of undocumented immigrants based on the current survey data approach are visa overstayers [7], which translates to a visa overstay population of 4.6 million in 2015. Our model however predicts the number of overstayers to be less than this (even though our overall estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants is higher). That is, in our model most undocumented immigrants are not overstayers, and the model produces an estimate of the number of overstayers below the estimate produced in the conventional approach based on survey data."
Who do you think is paying for this mess?
Quote: AZDuffmanMore like FB and others cannot continue their bias against conservatives, where the real problem is. IOW, a liberal site cannot block critics of their positions.
What are you proposing?
That the government step in and regulate how these platforms moderate content?
Quote: gamerfreakWhat are you proposing?
That the government step in and regulate how these platforms moderate content?
Isn't that what just happened?
Quote: gamerfreakWhat are you proposing?
That the government step in and regulate how these platforms moderate content?
It should. We have antitrust laws to prevent monopolies. The government once used those laws to break up big oil, the railroads, and the phone companies.
President Theodore Roosevelt sued 45 companies under the Sherman Act, while President Taft sued 75 more.
Monopoly busting created massive competition and growth for the economy, and a higher standard of living for everyone.
As long as Big Tech favors the political elite, the government won’t touch them.
Google maintains more than 90% of the market share for all Internet searches.
Facebook, Instagram (owned by Facebook), Youtube (owned by Google), and Twitter have 72% the market share of social media visitors.
How a handful of companies control billions of minds every day.
“A handful of people working at handful of technology companies, through their choices, will steer what a billion people are thinking today.”
They ban or bury whoever they want. They are steering your thoughts, whether you realize to or not.
Is this acceptable to you?
Quote: TankoIt should. We have antitrust laws to prevent monopolies. The government once used those laws to break up big oil, the railroads, and the phone companies.
President Theodore Roosevelt sued 45 companies under the Sherman Act, while President Taft sued 75 more.
Monopoly busting created massive competition and growth for the economy, and a higher standard of living for everyone.
As long as Big Tech favors the political elite, the government won’t touch them.
Google maintains more than 90% of the market share for all Internet searches.
Facebook, Instagram (owned by Facebook), Youtube (owned by Google), and Twitter have 72% the market share of social media visitors.
How a handful of companies control billions of minds every day.
“A handful of people working at handful of technology companies, through their choices, will steer what a billion people are thinking today.”
They ban or bury whoever they want. They are steering your thoughts, whether you realize to or not.
Is this acceptable to you?
Breakups probably will not happen, maybe for Google, but you cannot break Facebook like they did Standard Oil. OTOH, what I could see is FB, YT, and the smaller socials being regulated as a form of "common carrier." IOW, no more banning links to sites they do not like, no more calling opinions they do not like "hate speech." They wold have to let most anything be published unless it directly incited violence or/and illegal activity.
Railroads were granted large tracts of land and in return part of the deal was they had to take any customer willing to pay rate card price. FB travels over many public internet network resources, so there is some precedent.
Quote: AZDuffmanIsn't that what just happened?
No, they told they president he can’t block citizens from official communication.
Anyway, where I am going with this: I think the numbers are good. Evidently many people do not. They think this or that is a shoo-in, both ways. If the folks with all of the strong opinions here have the courage of their convictions, I would expect many, many postings of their offshore winnings after the election is over. The numbers are available -- I'd expect Trump backers to launch now when he's an underdog. And then report back with photos of all of their winnings after November 2020. I guess I'd expect Dem backers to bet now, too, based on Mueller on deck. Plus best not to wait for the videos of Trump/Epstein with the 28 girls. That'll hurt your number. So Dem backers better fire now, too.
Less posting, more gambling. Put those dollars where your beliefs are.
Quote:Hours after a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump cannot block critics on Twitter, a former Democratic New York assemblyman filed suit against Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for blocking him on the social media website.
I will NEVER understand why people block other people on Twitter when the "Mute" option is available. When you block, the other person sees a "You've been blocked" screen whenever they try to access your profile.
When you Mute, you never see anything from the Muted person but they have no idea you're not seeing their posts. They're just screaming into the void.
Quote: gamerfreakNo, they told they president he can’t block citizens from official communication.
But what was their reasoning?
I heard AOC loves blocking people. Surely the ruling covers her as well?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-stop-embracing-losing-issues-and-focus-on-getting-rid-of-trump/2019/07/08/baa3dca2-a1b3-11e9-bd56-eac6bb02d01d_story.html?utm_term=.da1d232ad919
Do us a favor Richard, sit back, shut up and stop warning these crazy liberals. Or don’t, they won’t listen anyways.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut what was their reasoning?
I heard AOC loves blocking people. Surely the ruling covers her as well?
The reasoning is that it’s unconstitutional.
AOC is getting sued for it as well and I hope it applies to her and all public officials.
Quote: gamerfreakThe reasoning is that it’s unconstitutional.
AOC is getting sued for it as well and I hope it applies to her and all public officials.
A little more deeper on the reasoning.
Quote: BozRichard Cohen, another long term liberal who gets it. The Dems are swinging so far left for whatever reason, they are helping Trump. Obviously with normal middle class Americans who are not purple haired militant lesbians.
The reason is it is just the DNA of any party on the left to move further left after a loss like they just had. Dick Morris had several videos on it. They think that the reason they lost to Trump is because they were not far enough left. They typically will move more and more left for about 10 years until they come in from the dark and a more moderate candidate catches on.
So far it has been true to what Morris predicted.
Imagine being such a stupid lard ass that you think calling someone skinny is an insult.
Quote: ams288Also, does he not understand fractions or is he saying Elizabeth Warren is 417% Native American? You be the judge...
She's 4,166% indian.
.Quote: ams288Also, does he not understand fractions or is he saying Elizabeth Warren is 417% Native American? You be the judge...
I so don't want a wacko left of left lib/Dem as our next President. But why is our current Prez able to post such a bizarre tweet? A man just called himself "great looking" and "smart" and a "true Stable Genius".
He referred to an opponent as "a skinny version of Pocahontas ".
Why can't I be Republican President?
Elizabeth Warren lied about her Native American ancestry to game the system at many levels. She now wants your support to establish the largest taxpayer giveaways in the history of mankind. Please continue to support me and the booming economy my policies have aided.
Quote: SOOPOOWhy can't I be Republican President?
Every second word you speak is not a lie
You appear to prefer profiting off of saving lives and not snuffing them out
You're not a religious zealot
You have empathy
You're educated
You don't f#$% people over for profit
You don't hate gays/blacks/browns
You wouldn't sell your mom for a buck
You wouldn't gut environmental protection
You can read and write
You don't believe in magic like "women will reject the rape" and "my body is a battery"
You're not a sexual predator
You don't "trigger the libtards"
You're not insecure
Sorry, hoss.
Quote: AZDuffmanA little more deeper on the reasoning.
The first amendment defines rights associated with the use of public or open forums.
Note that a public forum is not necessarily a public space. The government creates a nontraditional or limited public forum when it intentionally uses a space, public or private, for communication to the public.
The judge in the recent ruling established that social media accounts of government officials, intended to communicate with the general public, fit the definition of a public forum, which I would agree with.
The use of a public forum cannot be restricted based on the content of the speech of the user. Which is exactly what Trump was doing by blocking accounts that vocally disagreed with him.
This is pretty back and white in my opinion. It’s unconstitutional Trump, AOC, or any other public official to block anyone from access to public communication.
Quote: FaceEvery second word you speak is not a lie
You appear to prefer profiting off of saving lives and not snuffing them out
You're not a religious zealot
You have empathy
You're educated
You don't f#$% people over for profit
You don't hate gays/blacks/browns
You wouldn't sell your mom for a buck
You wouldn't gut environmental protection
You can read and write
You don't believe in magic like "women will reject the rape" and "my body is a battery"
You're not a sexual predator
You don't "trigger the libtards"
You're not insecure
Sorry, hoss.
Thank you, I think! I guess I want a candidate that can't exist with our pathetic moving letter and righter two party system.
Simpler tax system with us rich still paying the bulk.
Abortion legal until fetus capable of surviving outside the womb.
Strong borders with swift deportation of those crossing illegally.
Public service option for student loan forgiveness.
Equal rights for all citizens.
Strong foreign policy using tariffs if need be.
Abolish 'sanctuary cities'.
Work HARD to limit the deficit/public debt. It means lots of federal spending cuts and higher taxes.
I want to emphasize we live in a great country now, so no need to MAGA. Buttigieg is a viable candidate for President. So is Harris. Rapinoe can say f/u to our President. Apple/FB/Google keep enriching our lives. My phone works on the streets of Santorini, Greece. Is there a poster on the board that doesn't have AC? Indoor plumbing? Access to the Internet?
Babble over.
It depends on what STATE they are in
Quote: gamerfreakThe first amendment defines rights associated with the use of public or open forums.
Note that a public forum is not necessarily a public space. The government creates a nontraditional or limited public forum when it intentionally uses a space, public or private, for communication to the public.
The judge in the recent ruling established that social media accounts of government officials, intended to communicate with the general public, fit the definition of a public forum, which I would agree with.
The use of a public forum cannot be restricted based on the content of the speech of the user. Which is exactly what Trump was doing by blocking accounts that vocally disagreed with him.
This is pretty back and white in my opinion. It’s unconstitutional Trump, AOC, or any other public official to block anyone from access to public communication.
Though I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if the SC could manage to create speech zones like they do at major events like conventions. Such as,, your response to the President cannot be within 50 feet of his post. 50 pages of blank space. Screw us.
Quote: SOOPOOBut why is our current Prez able to post such a bizarre tweet?
At this point, there is not a single voter who will change their mind based on anything he does.
Quote: TomGAt this point, there is not a single voter who will change their mind based on anything he does.
If this were true(it obviously isn’t of course) then who should the Dems nominate? I’ll agree that it is a low number of people who might vote Trump over Buttigieg, but Biden over Trump for example. But it is NOT zero.
Quote: SOOPOOIf this were true(it obviously isn’t of course)
There is nothing that has transpired over Trump's term to think that it isn't true. His numbers have been consistent. I mean, if conservatives didnt' change their mind after Helsinki, how low does he have to go? Actually shoot people on 5th ave?
Quote: SteverinosThere is nothing that has transpired over Trump's term to think that it isn't true. His numbers have been consistent. I mean, if conservatives didnt' change their mind after Helsinki, how low does he have to go? Actually shoot people on 5th ave?
How low? Lower than someone who slept her way to Public office. Lower than someone who falsely claimed a heritage to get political advantages. Lower than someone who wants illegals to have no repercussions for being, well, illegal! Lower than someone who wants to tell people who took a loan, that poof, it’s gone! Lower than someone who wants to use my tax dollars to pay someone because their ancestors were wronged 200 years ago! Lower than someone who demonizes drug and oil and tech companies because.... they make a profit! Lower than someone who wants to take my tax dollars and give away savings bonds at birth? I can go on.... but as been called ‘the Clown Car’ of Democrat candidates (I forgot about the one who will fix all our problems with love) makes the buffoonery of Trump at least a PERSONAL buffoonery. Not an IDEOLOGICAL buffoonery that Dems espouse. I’ll say it again. No mater which socialist the Dems nominate I won’t vote for Trump. But if I had to pick between Trump and Sanders, Harris, Warren, Buttigieg... I’d have to pick Trump. Except for the large swath of libs suffering from TDS, the country is doing well now, by any fair metric.
Quote: SOOPOO.
Well, it does take about 30 Democrats to equal all of Trump's various transgressions.
Quote: rxwineWell, it does take about 30 Democrats to equal all of Trump's various transgressions.
Or 1/10th of a Bill Clinton.
Quote: gamerfreakThe first amendment defines rights associated with the use of public or open forums.
Note that a public forum is not necessarily a public space. The government creates a nontraditional or limited public forum when it intentionally uses a space, public or private, for communication to the public.
The judge in the recent ruling established that social media accounts of government officials, intended to communicate with the general public, fit the definition of a public forum, which I would agree with.
The use of a public forum cannot be restricted based on the content of the speech of the user. Which is exactly what Trump was doing by blocking accounts that vocally disagreed with him.
This is pretty back and white in my opinion. It’s unconstitutional Trump, AOC, or any other public official to block anyone from access to public communication.
That is what I was getting at! See, it is now just a step to be able to declare FB and other behemoths a "public forum." They could get to the point where they have to give up some property rights in exchange for being de facto monopolies/oligopolies. Remember how Ma Bell was a monopoly but had to turn over tons of research from Bell Labs? IIRC they put Sony on the map.
Quote: SOOPOOI’ll say it again. No mater which socialist the Dems nominate I won’t vote for Trump.
I applaud your decision. Co-signing evil shouldn't be taken lightly.
Quote: Sean SpicerThe President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States
That is the justification I saw, for not allowing the president to block people from seeing the president's official statements.
Then Bill Barr comes out and chastises the media for speculating that Donald would add the question even though he legally couldn’t (maybe Barr missed the numerous times that Donald said that’s EXACTLY what he would do??).
I think they hope to tire out any illegals by randomly announcing different dates.
Aw, maybe someone will hack one of the Trump donor lists and insert it in the ICE raiding list.
What is he going to DO with it?
Quote: Dalex64So, now he wants to collate the citizen/non-citizen numbers from existing information at various federal agencies.
What is he going to DO with it?
Bigger question is what are the haters so afraid of in having the question on the census again?
Quote: AZDuffmanBigger question is what are the haters so afraid of in having the question on the census again?
And If Trump had done nothing wrong why didn't he testify under oath directly like Bill Clinton did? That all innocent people will be convicted under oath is simply not a true answer either. Because plenty of people testify under oath and aren't convicted of anything.
