The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment
-
Obama lied to his voters, me included, I'm ashamed in retrospect to say.
He promised that he was going to reverse most of the crap GWB did due to 9/11. Obama expanded all that crap, not end it as he promised.
I already pointed out Mad Maxine's disputing the Electoral College votes for GWB, but against the rules doing it without a Senator co-signer. She said that she didn't give a damned about the rules, GWB was not going to be President.
I didn't, and still don't, like GWB. He was a shitty Gov and a worse President.
-
As I said, people like you don't want to drain the swamp because you don't like change.
Your fellow RINOs support social media abusing Section 230.
You guys are in bed with the liberals in only allowing speech that you like.
There is no real push to end or reform Section 230, because the swamp loves things as they are.
-
@raphjd
Thanks for the personal inventory, but you're not very good at reading me.
I thrive on change! In my job (a computer consultant), I couldn't survive without change.
But that doesn't mean chaos! Change has to be managed, and change has to have a goal of improving things, not just change for change's sake.My older brother is an avowed anarchist. He thinks the whole idea of government is inherently and irretrievably corrupt. (A child of his times: he grew up in the late 60's LOL)
No, you've got me all wrong. I'm a systems guy! I think you reform the system best when you reform it from within!
Just as in the case of election issues, if the only acceptable goal is perfection, you'll never achieve it, and you'll drive yourself batty trying to achieve the unachievable. (Not to mention: your idea of perfection likely will not jive with everyone else's!)
Instead of perfection, I seek improvement. We don't have to dismantle the election system in America to make it better. Indeed, ours is a better, more resilient system than any other in the world! But it still needs improving!
WRT: MoC's raising objections to Electoral College votes: it is not illegal, indeed, not even improper for a MoC to raise an objection to Electoral College delegations. What's rare (virtually unheard of) is doing so to attempt to change the result of the election.
If you read your history, most Presidential elections have had objections raised about one state or another. They are usually objections over some kind of voter suppression or local issue of one kind or another. They seldom have the requisite member of the House and Senate needed to move the objection into a full-on debate, but this isn't a first for that, either.
What happened this time that was a first was that the intent of the objections wasn't so much to highlight some kind of voter suppression or voting irregularity, as to attempt to change the outcome of the election itself!
Still, what has (thus far) NEVER occurred is the successful rejection of a slate of delegates from a state.
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
I already pointed out Mad Maxine's disputing the Electoral College votes for GWB, but against the rules doing it without a Senator co-signer. She said that she didn't give a damned about the rules, GWB was not going to be President.
Another correction, Maxine objected, as she has a right as a House member to do, knowing that no Senator would co-sponsor her objection. She was making a point.
Because of no co-sponsor, there was no debate on the objection, nor a vote in both chambers, so your characterisation of "against the rules doing it without a Senator co-signer" is nonsense.
The difference between what she did and what the treasonous GOP did is that they raised their objections based on the evidence free claims of fraud, and, because they got senators to co-sponsor there was a debate and vote on the objection where it was, correctly, swatted away for the anti-democracy rabble rousing it was.
It was within the rules, and they're entitled to do it, but they did it with treasonous intent. She didn't.
-
LOL, "Treasonous".
Liberals crack me up.
What about the "treasonous" Democrats that objected to the last 3 Republicans elected President?
2001, 2005 and 2017
-
-
You still sound like a swamp monster.
Very few things can change from within.
The EU is a prime example. Hell, they are so morally corrupt that they are even getting remoaners in the UK to turn on them.
What has the swamp done about Section 230 abuses? Most have ignored it. While some Democrats want more abuses. Only a few Repubs have called for either ending it or reforming it.
Nothing in government changes.
For 30 years, there has been a push to make pet theft a crime in its own right, like livestock theft. But the government refuses to budge from treating it like stealing a plastic spoon.
-
Ok, mister hypocrite.
-
@raphjd
Are you implying that there were no objections when Obama... or Clinton... or Carter were elected?You don't Google very well, do you! As I said earlier: it's harder (since the law was changed post-Civil War) to find an Electoral College count that DIDN'T have a house member object to something... (nearly always without a Senatorial co-sponsor).
Again, the purpose of those objections was never to change the outcome of the election, rather than to draw attention to some perceived grievance - nearly always in their home state. What made things different this time:
- multiple state's electors were challenged
- the intended purpose was to change the result
- the objectors were mostly (though not entirely) from other states
-
Calling me juvenile names doesn't change the facts.
-
@raphjd
Agreed that the National Government changes slowly... but it certainly does change, and the pace of that change has been getting faster and faster. Especially with each ensuing administration since Nixon seemingly expanding the powers of the Presidency (and Congress all too often complicit in the usurpation of powers not provided for in the Constitution!).But I question whether you actually understand what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 really does!
At its core, Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content. For God's Sake man, this is a torrenting site! Take away Section 230, and the content producers will shut this baby down faster than you can say howdy!
It's BECAUSE of Section 230 that content owners have to send the site a request to remove copyrighted content, and cannot sue the site owners over the fact that the lion's share of content shared here is copyrighted somewhere else.
(For those who care, a modification to Section 230 that was made in 2018 is the cause for the demise of the Craigslist personals - once a treasure-trove of prostitution, sex trafficking, and a ton of horny guys just looking to get off! -- in other words: a "den of iniquity with some good and some bad actors).
Anyway, without Section 230, the Internet would not even closely resemble what we know it as. Facebook couldn't exist. Nor Twitter (too much risk someone would publish "illegal" content, for which the ISP & website owner could be held legally and civilly liable!) OOOMMMPPPHHHH!
The issue some people have arising from Section 230 is the misguided (well, I think it's misguided) belief that large Internet content providers (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) are filtering Conservative viewpoints. They want to tie "free speech" rights to private companies (no-go there, the 1st Amendment only applies to the Government!). Conspiracy theorists and their followers believe there is a concerted effort on the part of these Internet companies to squelch Conservative voices on their platforms. The companies, naturally deny any bias.
Aside: As a Conservative (a non-conspiracy-theory-believing one), I don't see evidence of bias. But I do see extremists on both ends of the spectrum getting better and better at organizing and leveraging social media; and I see these tech companies trying (albeit imperfectly) to avoid being the tool by which these groups cause real harm.
As Parler & IONOS have shown, there is little-to-no barrier to entry for creating competitive platforms to Facebook, Twitter, etc... and there is already large-scale competition in the Google marketplace.
Thus, and in no small part because I like to download porn, I stand strongly in favor of keeping Section 230, if not re-strengthening it!
(That out to light a fire under @raphjd's pants!)
-
I never implied that it didn't happen to Obama. All I did was point out that it's extremely hypocritical to whine about it being done to Biden.
It's also IDIOTIC to call someone treasonous for something that is part of the rules.
Section 230 abuses are rampant.
Clearly, you have no idea what the problems are with 230. You choose whether to be a publisher or a platform. If you are a publisher, then you are responsible for the content on your site. If you are a platform, which social media claims to be, then you are not responsible. Social media acts as both.
If you can find it, Tim Pool was on Joe Rogan with Jack Dorsey and his top legal person. It's explained quite well. Also, in the Congressional hearing on the topic.
As for Parler and the like, that was big tech collusion. Zuckerberg admitted that they all talk and work together
-
Let me guess.
You view the people that stormed the Capitol as treasonous as well but don't think there was anything wrong with storming the Senate building and trying to storm the Supreme Court during the Kavanaugh hearings.
And we all know someone like you thinks the summer of love was a good thing.
-
Yes, and your claims about the Kavanaugh hearings are false.
This isn't hard.
It's very easy to say that there was a treasonous, attempted coup, on Jan 6th. If you can't utter that simple fact without engaging in (false) whataboutisms then you simply look like you're a fascist who hates democracy.
-
Ok, if you say so, dearie.
-
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
"You can grab them by the pussy BECAUSE THEY LET YOU"
I have sex with my husband because he lets me.
'I just start kissing them, I DON'T EVEN WAIT'
-
What do you think about the woman Trump talked about in that conversation who led him on so he would buy her a bunch of furniture, despite knowing she wouldn't sleep with him?
This is where you give her the pussy pass.
Arianne Zucker was there for most of the conversation and she didn't seem offended, but I guess you are offended for her.
-
@raphjd
There is no "choice" under Section 230...If you publish a libelous post about someone, you are responsible! No Section 230 protection!
If you provide a platform, and a 3rd party posts libelous content on that platform, you can sue the person who authored the post, but you cannot sue the platform!
If you provide a platform, and you post content that is libelous, you have no protection under Section 230 - because you're not a 3rd party!
-
NYT is a publisher. They control what is published, therefore they are liable for what is on their site.
Twitter is a platform, so they have no legal liability for what is posted. HOWEVER, they act as a publisher by controlling what is published.
