colourwheel

Here is the thing, Publicly Trump won't be completely going away for any foreseeable future. He is a complete narcissist and a person like Trump needs the attention. Regardless of what anyone thinks, Trump is far from being a humble man. Just his petty nature of needing to strike revenge on anyone he can think of who he felt was ever a fraction of a bit disloyal to him should say it all. For the next few election cycles, if it means you have to be a Trump loyalist to be considered a Republican then the Republican Party is doomed to fail on a national stage for quite some time. There just are not enough people who will follow Trump blindly, even if they make up over a majority of all Republicans in America. In order for this to change, the Republican Party has to stop being blindly loyal to just one person and make room for those who feel differently about Trump. If the party starts to excommunicate anyone who isn't for Trump then the Republican Party should just throw in the towel on every national stage. Currently if this is the new doctrine for the Republican party going forward, they are better off looking into strategies on how to better shrink the Party. edit: The sad irony about the modern Republican Party is it will probably be the year 2024 and people at Trump rallies will still be chanting "Lock her up!" as if Trump was still running against Hillary Clinton.

Trump doesn't really care about anything other them himself. It's pretty obvious he has no actual real interests in serving as a public official other then being in a position of absolute authority. As an example Trump has been floated the idea of running for congress and would most likely win if he did. So why wouldn't he run for congress? Other serious Politian's who have potentially run for President have gladly took the mantel of serving other public offices showing they have a real desire to do what they can to serve the country. An obvious reason why Trump won't is because he could care less of being a congressman. Trump won't run for congress because he most likely thinks it's beneath him besides the point he probably wouldn't be able to actually handle that type of job, which should speak volumes about how he views being a public servant in the 1st place. The sole purpose of his current political style tours around the country is to basically petty trash talk other republicans in office who he felt crossed him and to complain about the election results continuing a false narrative about the election being stolen as well as other conspiracy theories and this would be besides trashing on Democrats. Trump is obviously struggling to stay politically relevant if the only thing he wants to do is to hold rallies and petty other people while complain about the election results. Since the January 6th riot at the capital the percentage of republican voters who felt Trump actually won the election has fallen to only about 30% from a number that was originally over a majority of voters in the same camp. Another reason why Trump wants stay publicly relevant is because he is potentially going to be facing a lot of lawsuits over the next few years and this is the only way he really can.

I would have to slightly disagree a bit here. America is still a functioning democracy despite what people might think. It might seem currently that the Republican party is no longer a serious political party on a national level, but locally around the country they still have deep roots that keeps their party relevant and will for generations even after Trump is long gone and dead. Logically speaking Trump probably won't be alive 3 decades from now and most likely will be an irrelevant influence to the republican party in less than half that time. Just because one party Nationally is more relevant then the other in an unequally balanced way isn't a real threat to our democracy. through out history there was always a more dominantly leading party nationally for decades and decades at a time. Until there is an existence of only one political party in our country, I very much doubt there is anything to worry about when it comes to democracy. Over 74 million people voted for Trump in the last election and Biden only won by over a little of 7 million votes. In my opinion I thought Biden was an extremely weak candidate yet He still won the election. I am not saying Biden is a bad President or anything just he is not extraordinary in any way. The American people were just so fed up with Trump and they voted him out of office and would rather have a non-extraordinary President rather then a complete lunatic to run the country.

The original premise of this debate is flawed, because the entire question rest in the perspective of being govern by US laws. The world is much larger and more complex to look at this just through U.S. federal laws alone. Even so, say we do suddenly hold social media platforms liable, I agree with HeyYou, it would only make censorship even more over the top. In the end social media giants would start restricting what could be posted if they were to be inevitably liable for all content uploaded to their platforms.

This debate ended far before you started making personal insults. Maybe you should try to read over the rules for debates before you endlessly keep trying to convince with the "I am right and you are wrong" persuasion tactic.

Despite whatever laws are protecting them from liability for content uploaded on their platforms, despite what the original purpose of those laws were created for, it is still a platform that is privately owned. They don't need to claim any exemptions for responsibility. The reality is, if a platform like Twitter or Facebook or any platform that has large scale traffic suddenly was to be held responsible for everything and anything uploaded to them, the platform would just eventually die out and cease to exist. No one would want to operate or host something that has large scale traffic and manually moderate everything that is being uploaded in fear of potentially being held liable. If your objective is to basically get rid of these social media platforms all together, then to hold them liable would be the way to go because then suddenly over night, Facebook, twitter, YouTube, etc... would all close down in an instant. This is naive and actually comes across as somewhat disingenuous on your part. These companies are far to large and widely used to collapse that quickly or easily. And I have nothing against them claiming exemption for that very reason. They are now, whether we like it or not, the "public squares" for the modern age, with a vast array of content, not just "problematic" content. I really don't appreciate your tone and how your trying to debate this subject. You have already lost this debate in my opinion by calling me naive and disingenuous. With that said, these private corporations that offer social media platforms are nothing more then products of their business. Facebook and Twitter can all disappear in an instant just like Napster and megaupload have. Just because you are claiming them to be "public squares" for the modern age doesn't mean they are vitally necessary to exist. Before Facebook and Twitter users would use MySpace, before MySpace there was Friendster, before that was Blogger, etc... No matter how big you might think an internet platform is they can all virtually disappear in an instant, no pun intended.

Despite whatever laws are protecting them from liability for content uploaded on their platforms, despite what the original purpose of those laws were created for, it is still a platform that is privately owned. They don't need to claim any exemptions for responsibility. The reality is, if a platform like Twitter or Facebook or any platform that has large scale traffic suddenly was to be held responsible for everything and anything uploaded to them, the platform would just eventually die out and cease to exist. No one would want to operate or host something that has large scale traffic and manually moderate everything that is being uploaded in fear of potentially being held liable. If your objective is to basically get rid of these social media platforms all together, then to hold them liable would be the way to go because then suddenly over night, Facebook, twitter, YouTube, etc... would all close down in an instant.

1st off Twitter , Facebook, and and other media sites that happen to operate on American soil might claim to be "public" forums but it doesn't matter what they call their platforms, They are still owned by private corporations. On the internet there technically isn't such a thing as a true "public" forum because to host one requires money, maintenance, moderation, etc... Also it doesn't matter where in the world these internet platforms operate, If you have access to a platform that operates in a different country that platform would still have to meet certain standards for you to even access anyways. As an example there are many platforms that operate in different countries where users in other countries do not have access to because they completely operate within their countries laws. Maybe one day try to manually log into some South Korean Site, which in order to do so you would need to fill out your name, address, phone number, and the equivalent to a social security number just to have access to it. Using any search engine like google, your probably having access to maybe only a small fraction of sites and platforms depending on where you are trying to access them from. Usually internet providers will automatically filter out millions of clients as unsafe because they don't have any clear idea of how they are regulated. Unless you change your settings to be able to visit unsafe sites and platforms you most likely will never know they even exist. Also if you change your settings your service provider will still probably block sites they claim as unsafe anyways. One would strongly advise not to visit any unsafe site or platform because most the time it will be harmful to the device you are using infecting it with malware or a virus since it's either unknown or completely unregulated. If I am wrong about this understanding someone please correct me. Maybe my example wasn't extreme enough for you to understand the importance of some censorship. Just imagine your spouse or even daughter being exploited on the internet on some "public" forum to see. Maybe even a more extreme situation where another user has photos or video sexually compromising your spouse or daughter which they happen to lawfully own suddenly decided to upload them. I could get more explicit but I am sure you can use you own imagination.

Nope, that's a false analogy. Nexus IS a private site, and therefore has the option to censor content they deem inappropriate. But AFAIK Robyn has never tried to claim that The Nexus, despite it's size, popularity, dare I say even ubiquitousness within the modding community, be exempt from any laws or rules pertaining to content shared here. Nexus is a Private site, but regardless of being a private site they would still be exempt from being held liable even if it was just a public forum. Just like every other Social media giant is owned by private corporations, Nexus is also privately owned. Even so to my understanding, Nexus doesn't have to claim anything to have their own protections, that's just not how these laws work. So I am assuming you would be perfectly fine with someone spamming personal data about you on a "public" forum, from your personal address to your home phone number or even if someone got a hold of your financial account info? You would feel perfectly comfortable with someone spamming a public forum with your credit card numbers everyday, since you are so against censorship?

The irony about this debate is it all stems from Trump recently being permanently suspended from Twitter and Facebook. Supporters who blindly follow Trump's lead have suddenly become experts at internet laws over night without actually understanding that these laws they are railing against that protect platforms from being held liable for decades wouldn't even exist anymore for them to post their complaints or even let them freely debate if they were taken away. I said this before that Trump floated the idea of creating his own social media platform, since he no longer has anywhere to go to post his brain farts. If Trump did one day create his own social media platform, I doubt he would want to be held liable for everything uploaded to his platform either. Knowing how Trump is, I doubt he would just let users spam his platform with embarrassing and personal data about him either.

The Problem here is then there wouldn't be any platforms anymore where the average user can just randomly post their free thoughts, at least not on any large scale where millions of posts are uploaded every minute. Without protections that don't hold them liable for things that end up on their platforms, they would cease to exist. No one would ever want to host such a thing anymore because it would become too costly to review everything and anything that would be posted. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the freedom of speech and I don't like censorship anymore then the next person. But where does one draw the line then? Should the world just become desensitized to seeing violent imagery and pornography? Do we just accept users posting death threats to each other? There has always been limitations of freedom of speech even before the internet existed and society has survived and progressed just fine.

the whitehouse has its own page, which is usually the vehicle for official communications. that has not been shut down.trump is still free to give press conferences. trump hijacked social media for his official communications, unlike most presidents. this is why he is now suffering and it looks like he has been silenced. Even though the Whitehouse has it's own site for official communications and that any President can hold a press conference is beyond the point. Trump doesn't have the attention span most the time to do either of these things for himself without help. Unlike social media where Trump was able to get away posting a single sentence or short phrase unfiltered. Twitter and Facebook was the perfect place to see how Trump really felt on issues or anything that was on his mind regardless if what he had to say was true or not. Trump has mainly seemed silent because He can't just tweet some brain fart that comes out of his head any time he feels like it now.

I noticed recently in right-wing forums and media outlets there is an ongoing debate about Trump's Twitter account being permanently suspended. There seems to be a complete misunderstanding about what constitutes protected speech and the laws that we have lived under on the internet for almost the past 3 decades. Regardless of Twitter being owned by a private corporation which in turn gives such an entity the prerogative to suspend and ban users without any repercussions for discriminately doing so. Also regardless of the fact that even free speech has it's limitations, as the classic example where one can't get away claiming yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater as protected speech when there is no actual fire. The recent debate seems to focus on Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code. Vigorous Trump supporters have been claiming that because Twitter permanently suspended Trump's account that Twitter no longer should be protected by Section 230 protections. To my understanding, even if this was the case it would most likely put a burden on twitter to police it's user activity even more on their platform if everything that is posted could make them be held liable (leading to Trump's account being permanently suspended anyways). Sometimes I don't even understand how illogical these people can be when it comes to trying to defend Trump for any of his actions. Trump has recently floated around the idea of creating his own social media platform since every other known platform with high user traffic seems to intervene or outright remove the misinformation and dangerous rhetoric that Trump has posted within his presidency. There basically is no longer a GOP. The republican party and those who blindly follow Trump are willing to give up anything and everything to follow him as their dictator. Even if over half the republicans who support Trump will indiscriminately listen to anything and believe everything Trump says, there is no more hope in trying to save the republican party. Just like Trump being in his 70's, the GOP has gotten to the old age where it's likely not going to change now either, even if Trump will no longer be President soon.

For the longest time I been quiet on on any topic dealing with Trump online. Over the past 4 years a lot has changed and misinformation has been weaponized to a degree beyond anything I could possibly imagine. Social media and the internet has now become a place where a majority of people seem to get their daily fix of political news exaggeratedly slanted to their own personal perspective sometimes to the point of being complete non-sense and out right just false information. Regardless of what one might think of Trump or his presidential legacy. Trump will go down in history with infamy, failed insurrection, sedition, A president who not only has betrayed the country and the constitution it stands for but Trump has damaged the GOP beyond any recognition of what the party use to be and look like. In the words of Senator Lindsey graham "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed... and we will deserve it."

This political philosophy is a good philosophy that would work on a small Island or an extremely small country with a small enough population where everyone who lives there shares the same cultural values. The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is it could not possibly work in any large nation or anywhere that is extremely populated. With more people there is always more problems, conflicting beliefs, values, etc... The more people in a nation the more complex things are and simply trying to have a system where everything is privatized only one can imagine all the things that could go wrong when just looking at how things are in every large nation around the world now. This is just my own opinion about it, although I will admit I am no where close to being some scholar on this political philosophy.

I know it's been a long time since I last posted on this forum but the real reason why I think Trump lost in Georgia and why the state seems to have turned blue is not because of a lack of support for Trump or anything like promise of money, etc... This Election was the highest turn out in history for any national election. Trump lost Georgia and states like Arizona for one simple fact, Democrats just had a stronger ground game in registering eligible voters that clearly hadn't participated in previous elections. It becomes a clearer picture when u look at the exit polls for the recent Georgia Senate Runoff, being the highest turnout ever in history for a Georgia Senate Runoff race too. In My opinion Georgia has been a blue state for a while but only recently has one political party taken advantage of trying to register more voters then the other party.

@HeyYou Don't put words in my mouth, your the one calling yourself a deluded right-wing fanatic. But beyond that where would anyone get the idea that Clinton is a some kind of "criminal" when she has never been even indicted for anything?

@HeyYou So seriously since you are so bent on making Clinton out to be some "criminal". What exactly you think she deserves? Should she be skinned alive for being dishonest? or maybe something less painful like being tarred and feathered for having her own personal server? But I guess anyone who digests enough propaganda against someone, they would rather see them suffer the most painful death imaginable just for being caught farting in public. lol

Clinton is not a criminal, at no point was the FBI ever even pursuing a case of intent of breaking the law. There was never enough evidence to pursue any indictment period, regardless of any political propaganda you swallow up religiously on Hilary's emails. Even if they tried to pursue on the basis of gross negligence, not like anyone one involved wasn't already legally qualified to have any of the info being exchanged classified or not regardless if the lines being used were secure or not. All 110 classified e-mails in the 52 e-mail chains all originated from the state department which was info being sent to Clinton. It appears at most these violations of gross negligence would only result in severe reprimanding if Clinton and her staff were still in office to begin with. As well there is no historical precedented of conviction to weigh this situation to. The violations alone are just not enough to prosecute on the grounds of gross negligence. Even if a case was pursued, it would mostly likely be focused on her staff and not Clinton herself.

And poof goes the dream. FBI has said no indictment. Sorry dude ... I'm no Hillary fan but its looking inevitable she is going to be President. Ironic how the right wing propaganda machine tried so hard to make Clinton seem like some criminal ready to be convicted for over a year. I feel bad for those people who spent endless hours keeping up to date on the smallest details into this investigation while chatting in their mind "Burn Hilary, burn!". Only to end up with such an anti-climatic finish for them as if they were reading some mystery novel where the villain of the story gets away.

At least you are sensible enough to concede at this point that Sanders has almost no path to victory now. You would be surprised how many people I know in real life who support Sanders go into total denial when trying to make any argument that it's virtually almost an impossibility for Sanders to come out beating Clinton from this point on. Clinton didn't just defeat Sanders in the State of New York, She defeated him in a state which the Sanders campaign has been opening raving on for weeks as a must win state for them. Sanders spent over $5 million more in this state then the Clinton campaign even having the "strongest ground game" for victory. 94% of the vote has been accounted for since I last checked, at minimum Clinton has beaten Sanders by over 16 points in New York.

Was never saying that voting doesn't matter, just it's not the only factor when a party nominates a candidate. Usually the amount of public support one gets from the popular vote is a huge factor when a party decides who their nominee is.

In the Democratic primary the popular vote actually reflects the amount of pledge delegates unlike the Republican primary where in "some" states the winner takes all. This is because each candidate is allocated some pledges delegates even if they don't completely win a state in a Democratic primary or caucus based on how many votes they acquired. For one thing this is the primary season not the General election. Ultimately the party chooses their nominee not the people. A political party acts like any private organization that utilizes state law to hold public elections. The primaries and caucuses play a role in the nominating process but anyone who believes it's the people who really choose who the nominee is would be completely misguided. Clinton is leading in both pledged delegates as well as over 2.5 million more people have voted for her over Sanders. Sanders has no legitimate argument to make at this point if he ends up losing in the end. By the looks of it Sanders path to victory is become more out of reach the closer Clinton gets to having 2383 delegates.

Clinton was an elected Senator of the state of New York. Even though Brooklyn is a very large diverse city in the state, Brooklyn alone does not represent it as it's entirety. Well the New York Primary is this Tuesday. There has not been one poll done where Sanders has had any significant lead over Clinton in New York. Sure he might be able turn out "huge" rallies that create the perception that some how Sanders is favored to win New York. But huge rallies don't necessarily translate to votes and Clinton has known this since she started running her campaign. Seems like a good argument yet Clinton still has a significant lead in pledged Delegates as well as over 2.5 million more popular votes then Sanders has. If you add in the Super Delegates that are supporting Clinton, Sanders path to victory seems very bleak in my opinion. The primary there is in two days and still he is behind in all polling by double digits against Clinton. If he is still anticipating on winning NY, it would be interesting to see how the Sanders campaign tries to down play such an incredible loss for a state with the "strongest ground game". Maybe it's just me but electing the 1st Jewish president doesn't seem to have the same ring as electing the 1st female president. Not trying to discount 3.5 millions Jewish people in America but to me electing the 1st Female into office would have much more of a significant historical value. For one thing people in America have not been commonly discriminated based on being a Jew when acquiring a position or a job. Clinton has far more in favor of her then just that. In fact, I just see her as having more leadership qualities and being more willing to compromise, which is the only way to keep government moving. Was never assuming anything, but it's hard to argue with the political math that favors Clinton on legitimately winning the Democratic nomination. Especially seeing she has still been over all consistently leading by the popular votes, the Pledged Delegates, and the Super Delegates.

One of the reason why the "never trump" movement has been so ineffective since it began is because it has never been unified to support anyone one candidate for any particular reasons. If you are suggesting people will be so moved to go out to vote only to stop Clinton from getting elected, I have very little confidence in this working out well. There already is a precedent that only being against a candidate in an election ends up hurting the other candidate(s) in the race more.