2020 Election Thread

[3rdside]

Sure, one political party is participating in sedition and plotting to overturn the results of a free and fair election to install a dictator against the will of the people. But the REAL problem is that the other party sometimes gets offended when you do racism at them.

I don’t disagree as mentioned, but I suspect you’re underestimating the problem of wokeness in the world today - and it’s not just racism, it’s many ism’s (sexism, ageism, homophobia etc etc).

These ‘very credible people’ writing and speaking extensively about it - James Lindsay, Piers Morgan, Matthew Syed to name a few - is the case in point.

Thank you for putting that in quotes. It is hard to take people that openly support a racist like Trump as, writing credibly about the dangers of 'wokeness.'

Piers Morgan (he has definitely evolved into a far more respectable person of late, his early career was a little nasty as editor of a tabloid paper..):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan

Matthew Syed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Syed

James Lindsay:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Lindsay


These are as credible as you're going to get and they're not raising Wokeness as an issue this because they're misguided, I'm fairly certain of that.

As for 'credible people voting for Trump' - it's probably worth remembering Biden didn't even come close to winning in a landslide and that not all of Trump's supporters are brainwashed. Why would sensible people do that? It's a question I keep asking myself.

I do agree that wokism is a problem -- more and more every day. And it is clear to me that had a minority of the BLM protests not gone violent the Dems would be sitting with a nice Senate majority.

That being said, James Lindsey and anyone who voted for Trump as a protest against wokism is on crack. The man put up concentration camps on the southern border. Protest voting for him is like blowing your brains out because you had a bad headache.

This isn't a fair take - Obama deported more people than Trump and dropped more drone bombs in the middle east, for example.

That said, in light of Trump's antics since the election - and reading this article below just for good measure - anyone who wouldn't change their vote might very well be on crack.

[3rdside]

And to add - people tend to be single issue votes (I think?) and if you've been cancelled / tried to be cancelled then that's likely to be your single issue.

Not sure if you read the part about James Lindsay punking the academic world with his bogus academic papers but it hit a very raw nerve with the woke lefty academics:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ax/572212/

Their outrage knows no bounds it seems and as it's them who effectively shape our best and brightest minds (people being products of their environment and a student's environment being universities, where academics reside), the more woke left and outraged the academics become, the more woke left and outraged society becomes.

[3rdside]

I doubt that the GOP fails to pass this. There were a lot of Reps that voted for the plan, but Trump also wanted all the pork out of the bill too, and no one was willing to do that either. What are you looking for AIG? Are you looking to group all Republicans into whatever crazy ad hominin attack narrative of all Republicans have "unbelievable hatred you must have for people to make that ask for them, and still actively withhold the help they need from them at the same time."? Both parties are broken and filled with corrupt people, that's a f'n fact. Even your beloved Dems. They need to be weeded out with a blowtorch.

I think the bill shouldn't have the pork in it and get passed, even if it was more, and they should get rid of the provision that excludes 18-24 yr olds that go to college, along with helping out "small businesses", like restaurants, and not the Lakers, Amazon, Mega Churches, or any other large business that claims they are a small business. There is all kinds of ridiculous special interest crap, foreign aid and ect., but you can count on this getting passed, because these idiots are beholden to the money they are sending away and the stupid crap in it.

You think Mitch won't refuse to hold a vote on this in the senate? Even still, we all know what happens when this gets to the Senate. Hopefully it costs Perdue and Loeffler their jobs.

"Our opponents, Perdue and Loeffler, only supported this legislation because they were more worried about their jobs than about your well-being. They could have gone on the record supporting regular stimulus payments to everyday Americans back in March - instead they sold stock to ensure they'd benefit while people like you suffered."

Georgia, if you care about having Senators who actually give a shit about you, Warnock and Ossoff should be SLAM DUNK votes compared to these two.

Perdue and Loeffler's preemptive insider trading alone should have been reason enough; their hesitance to embrace this stimulus for the welfare of their constituents and other Americans should have sealed it.

If even one of these clowns winning their seat is GUARANTEED to continue enabling McConnell.

And In2ition, what say YOU about Mitch McConnell? The guy is a fucking cancer. If anyone deserves a blowtorch, it's that weasel and scumbag.

First off, I'm no fan of Cocaine Mitch who along with his wife is sold out to China. He would be one of many idiots dragged out by their ears.

Second, don't lose any sleep tonight. Mitch will put it to a vote, as he probably has a gun to his head along with most of the Senate to whatever foreign nation or special interest group they sold their vote to that will directly or indirectly get money from the porkulos.

Third, Warnock, the wife beating Communist, is a SLAM DUNK? Dear Lord, let's hope not. I honestly know nothing about Ossoff.

Exactly this, as applied to this micro example and to the USA election as a whole.

While one can hate what the R's stand for there's no reason R voters wouldn't just prefer to stomach the worst of their representatives' behaviour over perceived inadequate alternatives - it's pretty clear not all D's are perfect; some of them are incompetent or corrupt and some of them are just too socialist for the average American, raised - rightly or wrongly - to be believe that socialism is the enemy.

Yes Warnock and Ossoff both seem like likeable guys that want to do the right thing, but are they effective and are their policies better than what Purdue and Loeffler are offering?

Personally I'd vote for the D guys all day as I can't stand dishonesty or exploitation of people or rules, but I'm not like everyone else as the 2020 election so clearly pointed out.

[Nodack]

Is socialism the enemy? People can’t even agree what the definition of socialism is. I have argued about this many times and just give up. We need a good healthcare system in this country and I believe we are too dumb and divided to ever make that a reality and will instead continue to pay double what the rest of the word does because we are Americans and that’s what makes us free and sruff.

[3rdside]

It depends on what your definition of socialism is.

Northern European countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc all show that you can have a billionaire class and manage your worst off citizens with decency, but they're not really socialist they're free market / capitalist countries with strong welfare states - or social democracies to use the correct political term.

Social democracy is different to democratic-socialism (adopted by Latin America, loosely, and which is more like actual socialism) and that's where the confusion lies and where the Republicans trash the term.

And it's also where Bernie Sanders didn't do himself any favours by calling himself a democratic socialist as he's actually in favour of social democracy, particularly of the Scandinavian variety, and not democratic socialism as found in Latin America.

Socialism by definition broadly means all employees of a company own it, rather than there being an individual or small collective that owns it which, if I'm not mistaken, is what Marxism is (even though all political definitions evolve) and that is certainly not how Northern Europe, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are constructed.

I stand to be corrected on any of the above as that's just a quick review of wikipedia.

[In2ition]

I doubt that the GOP fails to pass this. There were a lot of Reps that voted for the plan, but Trump also wanted all the pork out of the bill too, and no one was willing to do that either. What are you looking for AIG? Are you looking to group all Republicans into whatever crazy ad hominin attack narrative of all Republicans have "unbelievable hatred you must have for people to make that ask for them, and still actively withhold the help they need from them at the same time."? Both parties are broken and filled with corrupt people, that's a f'n fact. Even your beloved Dems. They need to be weeded out with a blowtorch.

I think the bill shouldn't have the pork in it and get passed, even if it was more, and they should get rid of the provision that excludes 18-24 yr olds that go to college, along with helping out "small businesses", like restaurants, and not the Lakers, Amazon, Mega Churches, or any other large business that claims they are a small business. There is all kinds of ridiculous special interest crap, foreign aid and ect., but you can count on this getting passed, because these idiots are beholden to the money they are sending away and the stupid crap in it.

You think Mitch won't refuse to hold a vote on this in the senate? Even still, we all know what happens when this gets to the Senate. Hopefully it costs Perdue and Loeffler their jobs.

"Our opponents, Perdue and Loeffler, only supported this legislation because they were more worried about their jobs than about your well-being. They could have gone on the record supporting regular stimulus payments to everyday Americans back in March - instead they sold stock to ensure they'd benefit while people like you suffered."

Georgia, if you care about having Senators who actually give a shit about you, Warnock and Ossoff should be SLAM DUNK votes compared to these two.

Perdue and Loeffler's preemptive insider trading alone should have been reason enough; their hesitance to embrace this stimulus for the welfare of their constituents and other Americans should have sealed it.

If even one of these clowns winning their seat is GUARANTEED to continue enabling McConnell.

And In2ition, what say YOU about Mitch McConnell? The guy is a fucking cancer. If anyone deserves a blowtorch, it's that weasel and scumbag.

First off, I'm no fan of Cocaine Mitch who along with his wife is sold out to China. He would be one of many idiots dragged out by their ears.

Second, don't lose any sleep tonight. Mitch will put it to a vote, as he probably has a gun to his head along with most of the Senate to whatever foreign nation or special interest group they sold their vote to that will directly or indirectly get money from the porkulos.

Third, Warnock, the wife beating Communist, is a SLAM DUNK? Dear Lord, let's hope not. I honestly know nothing about Ossoff.

Exactly this, as applied to this micro example and to the USA election as a whole.

While one can hate what the R's stand for there's no reason R voters wouldn't just prefer to stomach the worst of their representatives' behaviour over perceived inadequate alternatives - it's pretty clear not all D's are perfect; some of them are incompetent or corrupt and some of them are just too socialist for the average American, raised - rightly or wrongly - to be believe that socialism is the enemy.

Yes Warnock and Ossoff both seem like likeable guys that want to do the right thing, but are they effective and are their policies better than what Purdue and Loeffler are offering?

Personally I'd vote for the D guys all day as I can't stand dishonesty or exploitation of people or rules, but I'm not like everyone else as the 2020 election so clearly pointed out.

I'm not talking about someone that just wants healthcare for everyone. Heck, even I want healthcare for everyone. Right now, they are really forcing us in that direction the way it is. It's just not affordable to have it as a middle income family. I pay about $650 every other week for high deductible insurance, that once the deductible is paid, only pays 80% for anything. Drug prices are out of control on it, and I'm essentially paying well over $15,000 a yr for health care. I'm nowhere near as wealthy as some of you, so this might seem like a pittance to you, but that's a huge deal to me. Might as well just take it out of taxes and have everything free after that, since I couldn't see it being much worse. It's gotten to the point where I am close to not being able to afford it for my family, and we don't even go to the doctor all that often.

And as far as your likable guy Warnock goes, he sounds great. Real stand up guy.
Alleged overseeing of Child Abuse - check https://www.westernjournal.com/particip ... cusations/
Alleged beating of his wife, by his wife - check https://www.westernjournal.com/bodycam- ... ting-wife/
Communist sympathizer - check https://www.westernjournal.com/dem-geor ... -campaign/
Racist and Anti-Semite sympathizer - check https://www.foxnews.com/politics/warnoc ... -important

Here's the thing, I am not even endorsing Purdue or Loeffler. I don't know much about them either, nor have I even cared much about them. They could very well be just as bad as Warnock and Ossoff, but it would be hard to be as big of a POS as Warnock has been.

Also, 3rdside, I'm not a single issue voter, but many want the socialism of the Nordic countries, and even they don't call themselves socialists. They call themselves capitalist that offer a lot of social benefits to their people. It would be nice to have our country and economy open like Sweden right now. Many politicians don't want that, they want something much more authoritarian and oppressive.

[Indy]

Many politicians don't want that, they want something much more authoritarian and oppressive.

Trump is the most authoritarian this country has seen in 100 years. Who are you talking about here?

[In2ition]

Many politicians don't want that, they want something much more authoritarian and oppressive.

Trump is the most authoritarian this country has seen in 100 years. Who are you talking about here?

Trump is locking down California and New York, closed over 50% of restraurants that will never reopen again? Trump has closed schools in these states and locked people up for not wearing a mask by themselves in a park? Trump is forcing restraurants in California to only offer outdoor eating and then force them to not do that either? Trump shut down the beaches at first in California? Trump shutdown everything in Michigan? I'm confused.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say that Trump is authoritarian.

[In2ition]

I am not sure you understand what 230 is all about. It literally lets online 'publishers' not be liable for their users speech. If they were liable for it, they would have to vet everything before it gets published like an op ed article in a real print newspaper. So there would be *far more* censoring than there currently is. If Twitter was liable for tweets, they would have a lot more than "This claim is not supported by facts" or other stupid language they use. You would submit a tweet and get a response back that says "thank you for your tweet. Our fact checkers and editors will review and get back to you in 3-5 business days."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Section 230. When I read it, it is giving these forums immunity to suits against them for what someone else posted, but it also says that they aren't supposed to act like a publisher. They can and are supposed to eliminate things like violent posts, child trafficking or anything that promotes that, but it doesn't allow it to do things like shadow banning, deleting content that doesn't do those other things, suspend accounts for no reason other than disliking their opinions, or censoring, deleting content or accounts that doesn't fall under any of the other things either, and just because it doesn't agree with the political views of those that posted it, no?
If I'm wrong, and this is still happening under Section 230, and if you took it away you would make it much worse, than what is the solution? I don't think any of these platforms should be politicized or used against each other in some weaponization against the 1st Amendment.

[Nodack]

Policing social networking sites is an issue that has come from the internet age. How much and who does it hasn’t been established and is constantly debated. People have figured out how to abuse these sites and flood it with misinformation and lies. Trump IMO is probably the worst. He abuses everything and tries to get away with as much as possible all the time. His comments all have the red comments from Twitter basically saying he’s lying about everything all the time.

I don’t know what the answer as far as policing content on social media is but, someone as powerful as the President of the US deliberately lying 100% of the time for political gain should be called out for it. It’s fake news. Trump calls ALL media fake. Nobody is stopping him from saying that.

[Nodack]

I doubt that the GOP fails to pass this. There were a lot of Reps that voted for the plan, but Trump also wanted all the pork out of the bill too, and no one was willing to do that either. What are you looking for AIG? Are you looking to group all Republicans into whatever crazy ad hominin attack narrative of all Republicans have "unbelievable hatred you must have for people to make that ask for them, and still actively withhold the help they need from them at the same time."? Both parties are broken and filled with corrupt people, that's a f'n fact. Even your beloved Dems. They need to be weeded out with a blowtorch.

I think the bill shouldn't have the pork in it and get passed, even if it was more, and they should get rid of the provision that excludes 18-24 yr olds that go to college, along with helping out "small businesses", like restaurants, and not the Lakers, Amazon, Mega Churches, or any other large business that claims they are a small business. There is all kinds of ridiculous special interest crap, foreign aid and ect., but you can count on this getting passed, because these idiots are beholden to the money they are sending away and the stupid crap in it.

You think Mitch won't refuse to hold a vote on this in the senate? Even still, we all know what happens when this gets to the Senate. Hopefully it costs Perdue and Loeffler their jobs.

"Our opponents, Perdue and Loeffler, only supported this legislation because they were more worried about their jobs than about your well-being. They could have gone on the record supporting regular stimulus payments to everyday Americans back in March - instead they sold stock to ensure they'd benefit while people like you suffered."

Georgia, if you care about having Senators who actually give a shit about you, Warnock and Ossoff should be SLAM DUNK votes compared to these two.

Perdue and Loeffler's preemptive insider trading alone should have been reason enough; their hesitance to embrace this stimulus for the welfare of their constituents and other Americans should have sealed it.

If even one of these clowns winning their seat is GUARANTEED to continue enabling McConnell.

And In2ition, what say YOU about Mitch McConnell? The guy is a fucking cancer. If anyone deserves a blowtorch, it's that weasel and scumbag.

First off, I'm no fan of Cocaine Mitch who along with his wife is sold out to China. He would be one of many idiots dragged out by their ears.

Second, don't lose any sleep tonight. Mitch will put it to a vote, as he probably has a gun to his head along with most of the Senate to whatever foreign nation or special interest group they sold their vote to that will directly or indirectly get money from the porkulos.

Third, Warnock, the wife beating Communist, is a SLAM DUNK? Dear Lord, let's hope not. I honestly know nothing about Ossoff.

Exactly this, as applied to this micro example and to the USA election as a whole.

While one can hate what the R's stand for there's no reason R voters wouldn't just prefer to stomach the worst of their representatives' behaviour over perceived inadequate alternatives - it's pretty clear not all D's are perfect; some of them are incompetent or corrupt and some of them are just too socialist for the average American, raised - rightly or wrongly - to be believe that socialism is the enemy.

Yes Warnock and Ossoff both seem like likeable guys that want to do the right thing, but are they effective and are their policies better than what Purdue and Loeffler are offering?

Personally I'd vote for the D guys all day as I can't stand dishonesty or exploitation of people or rules, but I'm not like everyone else as the 2020 election so clearly pointed out.

I'm not talking about someone that just wants healthcare for everyone. Heck, even I want healthcare for everyone. Right now, they are really forcing us in that direction the way it is. It's just not affordable to have it as a middle income family. I pay about $650 every other week for high deductible insurance, that once the deductible is paid, only pays 80% for anything. Drug prices are out of control on it, and I'm essentially paying well over $15,000 a yr for health care. I'm nowhere near as wealthy as some of you, so this might seem like a pittance to you, but that's a huge deal to me. Might as well just take it out of taxes and have everything free after that, since I couldn't see it being much worse. It's gotten to the point where I am close to not being able to afford it for my family, and we don't even go to the doctor all that often.

And as far as your likable guy Warnock goes, he sounds great. Real stand up guy.
Alleged overseeing of Child Abuse - check https://www.westernjournal.com/particip ... cusations/
Alleged beating of his wife, by his wife - check https://www.westernjournal.com/bodycam- ... ting-wife/
Communist sympathizer - check https://www.westernjournal.com/dem-geor ... -campaign/
Racist and Anti-Semite sympathizer - check https://www.foxnews.com/politics/warnoc ... -important

Here's the thing, I am not even endorsing Purdue or Loeffler. I don't know much about them either, nor have I even cared much about them. They could very well be just as bad as Warnock and Ossoff, but it would be hard to be as big of a POS as Warnock has been.

Also, 3rdside, I'm not a single issue voter, but many want the socialism of the Nordic countries, and even they don't call themselves socialists. They call themselves capitalist that offer a lot of social benefits to their people. It would be nice to have our country and economy open like Sweden right now. Many politicians don't want that, they want something much more authoritarian and oppressive.

All these fancy terms. This kind of socialism or that kind of socialism. Capitalism is really marxism in disguise. I am tired of labeling everything. It starts to mean nothing to me. We have capitalism, marxism and socialism all intertwined in our system already imo.

The entire planet pays HALF what we pay as Americans for health care and we as a country refuse to do anything meaningful about it except blame each other. Some of us shout out all those fancy terms and then do nothing. The Dems have continuously tried to do something about it and the Republicans have continuously done everything in their power to stop anything from being done ever IMO. The Dem Presidential candidates all had their ideas and plans that were slightly different from each other. The Republican Presidential candidates as usual had NO plans for health care. The Republicans have been talking about unveiling their health care plan for decades and so far... no plan. The Republican answer to everything is tax breaks. Our debt is astronomical and the GOP to combat it is tax breaks. Health care plan? Tax breaks. Better schooling? Tax breaks. Anything else is just Socialism and Communism.

You are upset about health care prices inf. Your party has done nothing to change that except blame Obama. Your party will continue to scream Socialism! and TAXES! decade after decade because it always works on you guys.

[Indy]

I am not sure you understand what 230 is all about. It literally lets online 'publishers' not be liable for their users speech. If they were liable for it, they would have to vet everything before it gets published like an op ed article in a real print newspaper. So there would be *far more* censoring than there currently is. If Twitter was liable for tweets, they would have a lot more than "This claim is not supported by facts" or other stupid language they use. You would submit a tweet and get a response back that says "thank you for your tweet. Our fact checkers and editors will review and get back to you in 3-5 business days."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Section 230. When I read it, it is giving these forums immunity to suits against them for what someone else posted, but it also says that they aren't supposed to act like a publisher. They can and are supposed to eliminate things like violent posts, child trafficking or anything that promotes that, but it doesn't allow it to do things like shadow banning, deleting content that doesn't do those other things, suspend accounts for no reason other than disliking their opinions, or censoring, deleting content or accounts that doesn't fall under any of the other things either, and just because it doesn't agree with the political views of those that posted it, no?
If I'm wrong, and this is still happening under Section 230, and if you took it away you would make it much worse, than what is the solution? I don't think any of these platforms should be politicized or used against each other in some weaponization against the 1st Amendment.

I think you might be confusing the 1st amendment and 230. Nobody (including any social media platform) is preventing you (or Trump) from saying whatever he wants, regardless of its truthfulness, or bigotry, or anything else. You can say those things as much as you want. But the 1st amendment doesn't say newspapers (or the 21st century equivalent) has to give you a platform to say those things. Go outside and scream them. Print up some pamphlets. Start a book group. Start a church. Those are all things you can do to spread your words, whatever those words are.

But no company is required to do that for you. And 230 is there to make sure people couldn't sue AOL (originally) because ihearthitler@aol.com said awful things on it.

[In2ition]

I am not sure you understand what 230 is all about. It literally lets online 'publishers' not be liable for their users speech. If they were liable for it, they would have to vet everything before it gets published like an op ed article in a real print newspaper. So there would be *far more* censoring than there currently is. If Twitter was liable for tweets, they would have a lot more than "This claim is not supported by facts" or other stupid language they use. You would submit a tweet and get a response back that says "thank you for your tweet. Our fact checkers and editors will review and get back to you in 3-5 business days."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Section 230. When I read it, it is giving these forums immunity to suits against them for what someone else posted, but it also says that they aren't supposed to act like a publisher. They can and are supposed to eliminate things like violent posts, child trafficking or anything that promotes that, but it doesn't allow it to do things like shadow banning, deleting content that doesn't do those other things, suspend accounts for no reason other than disliking their opinions, or censoring, deleting content or accounts that doesn't fall under any of the other things either, and just because it doesn't agree with the political views of those that posted it, no?
If I'm wrong, and this is still happening under Section 230, and if you took it away you would make it much worse, than what is the solution? I don't think any of these platforms should be politicized or used against each other in some weaponization against the 1st Amendment.

I think you might be confusing the 1st amendment and 230. Nobody (including any social media platform) is preventing you (or Trump) from saying whatever he wants, regardless of its truthfulness, or bigotry, or anything else. You can say those things as much as you want. But the 1st amendment doesn't say newspapers (or the 21st century equivalent) has to give you a platform to say those things. Go outside and scream them. Print up some pamphlets. Start a book group. Start a church. Those are all things you can do to spread your words, whatever those words are.

But no company is required to do that for you. And 230 is there to make sure people couldn't sue AOL (originally) because ihearthitler@aol.com said awful things on it.

Perhaps I'm misrepresenting my argument, as I said nothing about newspapers and I thought I explained that I my understanding of 230 was to keep these internet companies from being sued for what Joe Blow said. Did I not?

[In2ition]

You think Mitch won't refuse to hold a vote on this in the senate? Even still, we all know what happens when this gets to the Senate. Hopefully it costs Perdue and Loeffler their jobs.

"Our opponents, Perdue and Loeffler, only supported this legislation because they were more worried about their jobs than about your well-being. They could have gone on the record supporting regular stimulus payments to everyday Americans back in March - instead they sold stock to ensure they'd benefit while people like you suffered."

Georgia, if you care about having Senators who actually give a shit about you, Warnock and Ossoff should be SLAM DUNK votes compared to these two.

Perdue and Loeffler's preemptive insider trading alone should have been reason enough; their hesitance to embrace this stimulus for the welfare of their constituents and other Americans should have sealed it.

If even one of these clowns winning their seat is GUARANTEED to continue enabling McConnell.

And In2ition, what say YOU about Mitch McConnell? The guy is a fucking cancer. If anyone deserves a blowtorch, it's that weasel and scumbag.

First off, I'm no fan of Cocaine Mitch who along with his wife is sold out to China. He would be one of many idiots dragged out by their ears.

Second, don't lose any sleep tonight. Mitch will put it to a vote, as he probably has a gun to his head along with most of the Senate to whatever foreign nation or special interest group they sold their vote to that will directly or indirectly get money from the porkulos.

Third, Warnock, the wife beating Communist, is a SLAM DUNK? Dear Lord, let's hope not. I honestly know nothing about Ossoff.

Exactly this, as applied to this micro example and to the USA election as a whole.

While one can hate what the R's stand for there's no reason R voters wouldn't just prefer to stomach the worst of their representatives' behaviour over perceived inadequate alternatives - it's pretty clear not all D's are perfect; some of them are incompetent or corrupt and some of them are just too socialist for the average American, raised - rightly or wrongly - to be believe that socialism is the enemy.

Yes Warnock and Ossoff both seem like likeable guys that want to do the right thing, but are they effective and are their policies better than what Purdue and Loeffler are offering?

Personally I'd vote for the D guys all day as I can't stand dishonesty or exploitation of people or rules, but I'm not like everyone else as the 2020 election so clearly pointed out.

I'm not talking about someone that just wants healthcare for everyone. Heck, even I want healthcare for everyone. Right now, they are really forcing us in that direction the way it is. It's just not affordable to have it as a middle income family. I pay about $650 every other week for high deductible insurance, that once the deductible is paid, only pays 80% for anything. Drug prices are out of control on it, and I'm essentially paying well over $15,000 a yr for health care. I'm nowhere near as wealthy as some of you, so this might seem like a pittance to you, but that's a huge deal to me. Might as well just take it out of taxes and have everything free after that, since I couldn't see it being much worse. It's gotten to the point where I am close to not being able to afford it for my family, and we don't even go to the doctor all that often.

And as far as your likable guy Warnock goes, he sounds great. Real stand up guy.
Alleged overseeing of Child Abuse - check https://www.westernjournal.com/particip ... cusations/
Alleged beating of his wife, by his wife - check https://www.westernjournal.com/bodycam- ... ting-wife/
Communist sympathizer - check https://www.westernjournal.com/dem-geor ... -campaign/
Racist and Anti-Semite sympathizer - check https://www.foxnews.com/politics/warnoc ... -important

Here's the thing, I am not even endorsing Purdue or Loeffler. I don't know much about them either, nor have I even cared much about them. They could very well be just as bad as Warnock and Ossoff, but it would be hard to be as big of a POS as Warnock has been.

Also, 3rdside, I'm not a single issue voter, but many want the socialism of the Nordic countries, and even they don't call themselves socialists. They call themselves capitalist that offer a lot of social benefits to their people. It would be nice to have our country and economy open like Sweden right now. Many politicians don't want that, they want something much more authoritarian and oppressive.

All these fancy terms. This kind of socialism or that kind of socialism. Capitalism is really marxism in disguise. I am tired of labeling everything. It starts to mean nothing to me. We have capitalism, marxism and socialism all intertwined in our system already imo.

The entire planet pays HALF what we pay as Americans for health care and we as a country refuse to do anything meaningful about it except blame each other. Some of us shout out all those fancy terms and then do nothing. The Dems have continuously tried to do something about it and the Republicans have continuously done everything in their power to stop anything from being done ever IMO. The Dem Presidential candidates all had their ideas and plans that were slightly different from each other. The Republican Presidential candidates as usual had NO plans for health care. The Republicans have been talking about unveiling their health care plan for decades and so far... no plan. The Republican answer to everything is tax breaks. Our debt is astronomical and the GOP to combat it is tax breaks. Health care plan? Tax breaks. Better schooling? Tax breaks. Anything else is just Socialism and Communism.

You are upset about health care prices inf. Your party has done nothing to change that except blame Obama. Your party will continue to scream Socialism! and TAXES! decade after decade because it always works on you guys.

I agree they should have done something that helped improve the state of the American people in regards to healthcare. Besides, they may not be my party much longer. Things need to change, and I'm not beholden to any of the idiots in Washington, like they are to Big Pharma or their Lobbyists that make them rich.

[Indy]

I am not sure you understand what 230 is all about. It literally lets online 'publishers' not be liable for their users speech. If they were liable for it, they would have to vet everything before it gets published like an op ed article in a real print newspaper. So there would be *far more* censoring than there currently is. If Twitter was liable for tweets, they would have a lot more than "This claim is not supported by facts" or other stupid language they use. You would submit a tweet and get a response back that says "thank you for your tweet. Our fact checkers and editors will review and get back to you in 3-5 business days."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Section 230. When I read it, it is giving these forums immunity to suits against them for what someone else posted, but it also says that they aren't supposed to act like a publisher. They can and are supposed to eliminate things like violent posts, child trafficking or anything that promotes that, but it doesn't allow it to do things like shadow banning, deleting content that doesn't do those other things, suspend accounts for no reason other than disliking their opinions, or censoring, deleting content or accounts that doesn't fall under any of the other things either, and just because it doesn't agree with the political views of those that posted it, no?
If I'm wrong, and this is still happening under Section 230, and if you took it away you would make it much worse, than what is the solution? I don't think any of these platforms should be politicized or used against each other in some weaponization against the 1st Amendment.

I think you might be confusing the 1st amendment and 230. Nobody (including any social media platform) is preventing you (or Trump) from saying whatever he wants, regardless of its truthfulness, or bigotry, or anything else. You can say those things as much as you want. But the 1st amendment doesn't say newspapers (or the 21st century equivalent) has to give you a platform to say those things. Go outside and scream them. Print up some pamphlets. Start a book group. Start a church. Those are all things you can do to spread your words, whatever those words are.

But no company is required to do that for you. And 230 is there to make sure people couldn't sue AOL (originally) because ihearthitler@aol.com said awful things on it.

Perhaps I'm misrepresenting my argument, as I said nothing about newspapers and I thought I explained that I my understanding of 230 was to keep these internet companies from being sued for what Joe Blow said. Did I not?

So then you understand the if you were to just strike 230, there would be far MORE censorship on social media?

[In2ition]

I am not sure you understand what 230 is all about. It literally lets online 'publishers' not be liable for their users speech. If they were liable for it, they would have to vet everything before it gets published like an op ed article in a real print newspaper. So there would be *far more* censoring than there currently is. If Twitter was liable for tweets, they would have a lot more than "This claim is not supported by facts" or other stupid language they use. You would submit a tweet and get a response back that says "thank you for your tweet. Our fact checkers and editors will review and get back to you in 3-5 business days."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Section 230. When I read it, it is giving these forums immunity to suits against them for what someone else posted, but it also says that they aren't supposed to act like a publisher. They can and are supposed to eliminate things like violent posts, child trafficking or anything that promotes that, but it doesn't allow it to do things like shadow banning, deleting content that doesn't do those other things, suspend accounts for no reason other than disliking their opinions, or censoring, deleting content or accounts that doesn't fall under any of the other things either, and just because it doesn't agree with the political views of those that posted it, no?
If I'm wrong, and this is still happening under Section 230, and if you took it away you would make it much worse, than what is the solution? I don't think any of these platforms should be politicized or used against each other in some weaponization against the 1st Amendment.

I think you might be confusing the 1st amendment and 230. Nobody (including any social media platform) is preventing you (or Trump) from saying whatever he wants, regardless of its truthfulness, or bigotry, or anything else. You can say those things as much as you want. But the 1st amendment doesn't say newspapers (or the 21st century equivalent) has to give you a platform to say those things. Go outside and scream them. Print up some pamphlets. Start a book group. Start a church. Those are all things you can do to spread your words, whatever those words are.

But no company is required to do that for you. And 230 is there to make sure people couldn't sue AOL (originally) because ihearthitler@aol.com said awful things on it.

Perhaps I'm misrepresenting my argument, as I said nothing about newspapers and I thought I explained that I my understanding of 230 was to keep these internet companies from being sued for what Joe Blow said. Did I not?

So then you understand the if you were to just strike 230, there would be far MORE censorship on social media?

I'm still not sure that would be the case, but let's take it that it would. What is the solution for LESS censorship on social media?

[Indy]

Let's start with this:

With 230: Joe Schmoe writes something libelous about Trump or Biden on Facebook. Trump/Biden can sue Joe, but not Facebook.

W/o 230: Trump/Biden could sue both Facebook and Joe.

Do you agree that would incentivize Facebook to restrict what Joe says more than it does today?

[In2ition]

Let's start with this:

With 230: Joe Schmoe writes something libelous about Trump or Biden on Facebook. Trump/Biden can sue Joe, but not Facebook.

W/o 230: Trump/Biden could sue both Facebook and Joe.

Do you agree that would incentivize Facebook to restrict what Joe says more than it does today?

You have a point, but it doesn't solve the problem of censorship that happens on FB, Youtube, and Twitter. Heck, it doesn't solve the problem with Google hiding search results. That's what I'm asking, what do you do to curb censorship with 230? Youtube can ban or withhold earnings on a channel that was getting paid monetarily for no reason. They don't have to give that money back either. What's the solution to that? You would think that these companies could be held accountable in some way.

[AmareIsGod]

Oh wow. It's Mitch McConnell!



For those of you who can't tell the difference, this creature has a soul.

[3rdside]

I doubt that the GOP fails to pass this. There were a lot of Reps that voted for the plan, but Trump also wanted all the pork out of the bill too, and no one was willing to do that either. What are you looking for AIG? Are you looking to group all Republicans into whatever crazy ad hominin attack narrative of all Republicans have "unbelievable hatred you must have for people to make that ask for them, and still actively withhold the help they need from them at the same time."? Both parties are broken and filled with corrupt people, that's a f'n fact. Even your beloved Dems. They need to be weeded out with a blowtorch.

I think the bill shouldn't have the pork in it and get passed, even if it was more, and they should get rid of the provision that excludes 18-24 yr olds that go to college, along with helping out "small businesses", like restaurants, and not the Lakers, Amazon, Mega Churches, or any other large business that claims they are a small business. There is all kinds of ridiculous special interest crap, foreign aid and ect., but you can count on this getting passed, because these idiots are beholden to the money they are sending away and the stupid crap in it.

You think Mitch won't refuse to hold a vote on this in the senate? Even still, we all know what happens when this gets to the Senate. Hopefully it costs Perdue and Loeffler their jobs.

"Our opponents, Perdue and Loeffler, only supported this legislation because they were more worried about their jobs than about your well-being. They could have gone on the record supporting regular stimulus payments to everyday Americans back in March - instead they sold stock to ensure they'd benefit while people like you suffered."

Georgia, if you care about having Senators who actually give a shit about you, Warnock and Ossoff should be SLAM DUNK votes compared to these two.

Perdue and Loeffler's preemptive insider trading alone should have been reason enough; their hesitance to embrace this stimulus for the welfare of their constituents and other Americans should have sealed it.

If even one of these clowns winning their seat is GUARANTEED to continue enabling McConnell.

And In2ition, what say YOU about Mitch McConnell? The guy is a fucking cancer. If anyone deserves a blowtorch, it's that weasel and scumbag.

First off, I'm no fan of Cocaine Mitch who along with his wife is sold out to China. He would be one of many idiots dragged out by their ears.

Second, don't lose any sleep tonight. Mitch will put it to a vote, as he probably has a gun to his head along with most of the Senate to whatever foreign nation or special interest group they sold their vote to that will directly or indirectly get money from the porkulos.

Third, Warnock, the wife beating Communist, is a SLAM DUNK? Dear Lord, let's hope not. I honestly know nothing about Ossoff.

Exactly this, as applied to this micro example and to the USA election as a whole.

While one can hate what the R's stand for there's no reason R voters wouldn't just prefer to stomach the worst of their representatives' behaviour over perceived inadequate alternatives - it's pretty clear not all D's are perfect; some of them are incompetent or corrupt and some of them are just too socialist for the average American, raised - rightly or wrongly - to be believe that socialism is the enemy.

Yes Warnock and Ossoff both seem like likeable guys that want to do the right thing, but are they effective and are their policies better than what Purdue and Loeffler are offering?

Personally I'd vote for the D guys all day as I can't stand dishonesty or exploitation of people or rules, but I'm not like everyone else as the 2020 election so clearly pointed out.

I'm not talking about someone that just wants healthcare for everyone. Heck, even I want healthcare for everyone. Right now, they are really forcing us in that direction the way it is. It's just not affordable to have it as a middle income family. I pay about $650 every other week for high deductible insurance, that once the deductible is paid, only pays 80% for anything. Drug prices are out of control on it, and I'm essentially paying well over $15,000 a yr for health care. I'm nowhere near as wealthy as some of you, so this might seem like a pittance to you, but that's a huge deal to me. Might as well just take it out of taxes and have everything free after that, since I couldn't see it being much worse. It's gotten to the point where I am close to not being able to afford it for my family, and we don't even go to the doctor all that often.

And as far as your likable guy Warnock goes, he sounds great. Real stand up guy.
Alleged overseeing of Child Abuse - check https://www.westernjournal.com/particip ... cusations/
Alleged beating of his wife, by his wife - check https://www.westernjournal.com/bodycam- ... ting-wife/
Communist sympathizer - check https://www.westernjournal.com/dem-geor ... -campaign/
Racist and Anti-Semite sympathizer - check https://www.foxnews.com/politics/warnoc ... -important

Here's the thing, I am not even endorsing Purdue or Loeffler. I don't know much about them either, nor have I even cared much about them. They could very well be just as bad as Warnock and Ossoff, but it would be hard to be as big of a POS as Warnock has been.

Also, 3rdside, I'm not a single issue voter, but many want the socialism of the Nordic countries, and even they don't call themselves socialists. They call themselves capitalist that offer a lot of social benefits to their people. It would be nice to have our country and economy open like Sweden right now. Many politicians don't want that, they want something much more authoritarian and oppressive.

I'd be careful about citing Western Journal as a source - it was such a bad fake news rag it was banned by Google and Apple under its previous name of Western Journalism.

It's sites like these that are, for me, the problem in the USA - the real fake news. Along the lines of R's do 9 things bad and 1 thing good and no one cares, D's do 9 things good and 1 thing bad and the R's scream blue bloody murder trying to equate the two parties as equally bad, these types of papers adopt the same approach

e.g. the child abuse case, which Warnock was entirely cleared of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Warnock) - yet he's presented as a 'piece of sh*t', guilty by loose association only, but absorbed by you as fact when it's not justified to to do so.

Ockham's Razor, a reasonably loose argument here I accept, but who's likely to be a better person more likely to have your best interests at heart - a former pastor in Warnock or proven pork barrelers, inside traders and self servers Purdue and Loeffler?

Reading Loeffler's wikipedia page, my god she is a nasty piece of work.