I believe you are stretching your imagination. Recommending that your account on social media be investigated for possible suspension is not anywhere close to going to jail.
Elon Musk
- Thread starter Dangler
- Start date
What gives the FBI or you or me the right to suggest to a company that some of their users are violating the companies rules of service? That's what we're paying the FBI to do? They had one user who had 10 followers and he was targeted. The FBI is supposed to fight crime; where is the crime of voicing a different opinion?
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 29,618
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Points
- 133
- Location
- An inch and 1/2 deeper than before
Do you even bother to understand what you read. Read the post again and then reply accordingly
Did I read what you said correctly? You want to get of the Electoral College, something very important to our founders and has been working for more than 200 years?
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 29,618
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Points
- 133
- Location
- An inch and 1/2 deeper than before
There is no credible evidence that the popular vote was/is corrupt.
The current political environment has changed drastically from the 18th century. The working class is now considered informed citizens. Welcome to the 21st century.
The current political environment has changed drastically from the 18th century. The working class is now considered informed citizens. Welcome to the 21st century.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 29,618
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Points
- 133
- Location
- An inch and 1/2 deeper than before
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 411
- Points
- 103
I'm baffled by your logic. After first defending the payments Twitter made to the FBI as reimbursement for processing legal requests (to which I pointed out that that would only apply under 2703(d), but there was no investigation taking place), you then said, "Just think about how much safer we would all be without the pesky FBI." I assumed that was meant ironically - that you support having the FBI to provide us with a level of safety. Whether Hoover was right or wrong at the time, MLK was being investigated for ties to the Communist Party of the US. Court orders allowed that to happen. Seems that would fall in line with a person's belief in FBI as a protective service. With regard to Twitter, however, they're simply trying to censor certain speech and, again, without any investigation, court order, or even reasonable cause for an investigation. I'm just not following the logic you're applying here.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 29,618
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Points
- 133
- Location
- An inch and 1/2 deeper than before
You can't follow his logic because none has been applied.
He argues with emotion, not facts!
The Fact that you guys continuously disregard is that the FBI did not censor Twitter but rather forwarded information for Twitter to use in investigating rules violations. The FBI asked Twitter to research its files and paid Twitter for its time and effort, a standard procedure employed by many entities outside of the government. Perhaps not ethically proper, but definitely not unconstitutional.
JD - yes it was sarcasm.
JD - yes it was sarcasm.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 411
- Points
- 103
"Definitely" not?? Again, the courts have ruled that the government cannot accomplish through others any actions that they, themselves, are prohibited from doing. As I've said... This is about as close as it gets to the US government censoring speech without actually directly doing the censoring, themselves. By regularly posing threats to social media and then suggesting that Twitter look into posts and, on more than one occasion, recommending that posts be removed and people be banned, they've been able to control speech. Everyone should be troubled by this and I'm not even sure what it is that you're defending or arguing for or against.
Wait a minute; let's back up the truck. No evidence that the popular vote was corrupt? Let's go back to what you and others believe; Russian collusion. You still believe Russia colluded with Trump to steal the election. Now how is that possible? Did they bribe the electors in the EC? Not very likely huh? So the only way to do it is to influence the voters, the very same thing our Founding Fathers were afraid of and the reason they created the EC.
Now Russians are cheap but smart. Since they know which states will go red or blue the only places they have to spend money to influence voters would be the swing states. Influence enough people and your man wins.
Oh so getting rid of the EC means the Russians will have to spend more money to influence enough voters to win the popular vote and get their guy in. Wanna explain how that will work? I don't know if the Russians have that much money but the Chinese do. What a great idea!
The Russians did not try to influence the EC, that is what the Republicans tried to do on January 6. Putin and Trump were BFFs so Russia tried to influence the vote using social media. Whether Trump tried to help Russia in their endeavor is debatable.
The EC was created primarily to give smaller rural/agriculturally focused states more equal representation with larger, more populated/business oriented states. Also the founding fathers were concerned about the risk of leaving too much power in the hands of an ill-informed public.
Both of the above reasons for creating the EC are no longer that relevant.
The EC was created primarily to give smaller rural/agriculturally focused states more equal representation with larger, more populated/business oriented states. Also the founding fathers were concerned about the risk of leaving too much power in the hands of an ill-informed public.
Both of the above reasons for creating the EC are no longer that relevant.
You completely avoided answering the question.
First off the big state/small state myth didn't start til many years later.At the time of the writing the fledgling country had 5 large population centers;Boston, NYC,Philly, Richmond and Atlanta. The north/south thing counter balanced each other.
The EC was created because the Founders did not trust the common man, the voters. Many at that time were still aligned with England and wouldn't have been all that upset if the British had won. The Founders wanted what they called "men of prominence", business or large land owners as electors. They reasoned that these people actually cared who ran the country and cared that it continue. Plus they knew England would really punish the rich guys.
The Founders knew that the small guy, farmer, merchants did not have an easy life in the new country. They easily could have been persuaded with money, land and especially alcohol to voted in manners that would not be helpful to the continuation of the country. Most of them simply wanted to live in peace and if someone were to come along and make their life easier well so be they'd take it. The rich, as many of the Founders were, knew a return to English rule would not b good for them. That was the intended purpose of the EC; not small state big state but survival of the country.
There is so much myth surrounding the Revolution it's scary. Boston Tea Party; a bunch of colonist dressed up like Indians to throw British tea overboard as a sign of protest! Wrong! Two of the biggest tea smugglers in the colonies who made their fortunes smuggling were a guy named John Adams and John Hancock. Those names familiar to you? The British by act of Parliament actually lowered the price of their tea which cut into those guys business so they got bunch of guys in blackface so they would not be recognized to dump the tea on the recently arrived ships.
Now let's get back to allowing the president to be chosen by the popular vote. Since you still believe in the Russian collusion thing the only way to influence the voters is to takeout ads,h use social media, tv commercials and spend lots of money doing it. You will convince people. That's what Hillary and others said in 2016; Russian bots flooded the media with anti Hillary stuff and that's how Trump won. Your own side admits that people can be influenced or brought off in a manner of speaking to vote a certain way. You think that's safe? Exactly what the Founders didn't want.
Now the Founders were also smart enough to set a time period from the general election to the convening of the College.(the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December) It allowed time for people to contest the results of the election and to bring forth proof thereof. It was their way of checking on the validity of the election. So you want to wipe out an important check and balance.
It seems you and your party want to destroy what the Founders intended and just want to weaken the whole system. You want no voter I.D. and while we're at it let's get rid of the EC. If you think getting rid any of those things ( popular vote, no I.D. and no EC) makes elections more secure please explain it to me.
First, i do not have a party, I am an independent. Second, I never said Trump colluded with Russia. I said Russia tried to influence the vote through social Media and as you said by using bots, etc. if you think people can’t be influenced through advertising, please tell me why each party spends millions on their campaigns for advertising every election or even what is the purpose of setting up a campaign.
Without the Electoral college, you can still have a delay to allow people to contest the results to assure validity prior to formally certifying the results of the election. It would also prevent fake electors from submitting false certifications as happened in the last election.
in the polling places I have used, I have to sign a record book with my signature verified by the poll worker against my signature on file which required an ID. The record is available for subsequent verification.
I do not understand what relevance the Boston tea party has on the popular vote.
Without the Electoral college, you can still have a delay to allow people to contest the results to assure validity prior to formally certifying the results of the election. It would also prevent fake electors from submitting false certifications as happened in the last election.
in the polling places I have used, I have to sign a record book with my signature verified by the poll worker against my signature on file which required an ID. The record is available for subsequent verification.
I do not understand what relevance the Boston tea party has on the popular vote.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 411
- Points
- 103
Keith Whittington (Princeton politics prof) blogged about the EC for Volokh a few years ago and I think it remains an insightful piece that puts both the good and bad of it into balanced perspective. https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/22/the-electoral-college-is-just-ok
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 411
- Points
- 103
Tesla has announced plans to build a factory in Shanghai to produce its Megapack energy storage system, as Elon Musk resists rising opposition in Washington to US technology companies investing in China. So much for boosting American manufacturing and cutting reliance on China for manufacturing and technology..
Do you care that he built the same exact plant years ago in California. Now the guy is a citizen of 3 countries and has worldwide companies so I don't think it's all that terrible to build a plant there. Who knows Hunter and The Big Guy may get a kickback.
I tell you all the money the Bidens got from China it takes balls to bring this subject up.
I tell you all the money the Bidens got from China it takes balls to bring this subject up.
