Culture Wars

[kalm]

Unity.

VP Vance hosted the Charlie Kirk Show today.

[houndawg]

Unity.

VP Vance hosted the Charlie Kirk Show today.

I bet JD sits in that chair and ponders the 25th amendment....

[kalm]

To go through with this would be wrong. Erasing or altering to fit your comfort zone or agenda history is for the weak minded.

[kalm]

Gay tech bro who embraces The Lord of the Rings as religious canon giving a sermon on the antichrist.

This is one weird group of thought leaders controlling our politics.

[Caribbean Hen]

To go through with this would be wrong. Erasing or altering to fit your comfort zone or agenda history is for the weak minded.

I say keep that photo right where it is but match it with some of the graphic shootings in Chicago.

[kalm]

To go through with this would be wrong. Erasing or altering to fit your comfort zone or agenda history is for the weak minded.

I say keep that photo right where it is but match it with some of the graphic shootings in Chicago.

You’re seriously comparing inner city violence with slavery?

[Caribbean Hen]

I say keep that photo right where it is but match it with some of the graphic shootings in Chicago.

You’re seriously comparing inner city violence with slavery?

The inner city plantations are modern day slavery

All Dem controlled

[kalm]

You’re seriously comparing inner city violence with slavery?

The inner city plantations are modern day slavery

All Dem controlled

[BDKJMU]

[kalm]

State sponsored or manipulated censorship is a good thing? MAGA loves autocracy.

[GannonFan]

State sponsored or manipulated censorship is a good thing? MAGA loves autocracy.

It's never a good thing. It wasn't a good thing when the Biden administration bullied social media and news sites to censor anything that didn't coincide perfectly with their views on COVID or vaccines. It wasn't good when the collective media decided to squash the Hunter Biden laptop story until well after the election. And it's certainly not good now when Trump or one of his appointees demand the removal of anyone from the public airwaves because they didn't like what they said. There has been far too much government overreach into public speech both on the airwaves and on the internet. On issues of speech, if people don't like what someone is saying, they are welcome to turn the channel. Very few people in the grand scheme of things actually watch Kimmel - it is a dying vestige of an earlier age of television. But that doesn't justify pushing him off the air. This is not a good thing.

[Caribbean Hen]

A fair and balanced media would be great

Unfortunately, the 4th Estate had kicked into overdrive over the past decade, totally unhinged against Trump. Never curious about Biden. Trump is fighting back hard now

The pendulum should start to even out over the coming years*

* but the brutal killing of Charlie Kirk and the fallout from the demonic leftist response to it is a big wildcard

[kalm]

State sponsored or manipulated censorship is a good thing? MAGA loves autocracy.

It's never a good thing. It wasn't a good thing when the Biden administration bullied social media and news sites to censor anything that didn't coincide perfectly with their views on COVID or vaccines. It wasn't good when the collective media decided to squash the Hunter Biden laptop story until well after the election. And it's certainly not good now when Trump or one of his appointees demand the removal of anyone from the public airwaves because they didn't like what they said. There has been far too much government overreach into public speech both on the airwaves and on the internet. On issues of speech, if people don't like what someone is saying, they are welcome to turn the channel. Very few people in the grand scheme of things actually watch Kimmel - it is a dying vestige of an earlier age of television. But that doesn't justify pushing him off the air. This is not a good thing.

Yes…silencing speech is bad regardless of where it’s coming from. I don’t think what happened in the past compares to what’s currently going on. There are times where one side is more guilty. There can also be significant differences regarding motivations and subjects.

As I previously posted, FCC chair Brendan Carr admits this was part of the project 25 agenda. They were going to do it before Kirk as killed and Kimmel made some fairly benign comments in his monologue.

[kalm]

A fair and balanced media would be great

Unfortunately, the 4th Estate had kicked into overdrive over the past decade, totally unhinged against Trump. Never curious about Biden. Trump is fighting back hard now

The pendulum should start to even out over the coming years*

* but the brutal killing of Charlie Kirk and the fallout from the demonic leftist response to it is a big wildcard

Demonic!

The ignorance from apolitical people and the right as to Kirk’s commentary is also troubling. There’s still plenty of media available delivering the facts and truth for those truly interested in being objective.

[Ibanez]

A fair and balanced media would be great

Unfortunately, the 4th Estate had kicked into overdrive over the past decade, totally unhinged against Trump. Never curious about Biden. Trump is fighting back hard now

The pendulum should start to even out over the coming years*

* but the brutal killing of Charlie Kirk and the fallout from the demonic leftist response to it is a big wildcard

Look up a show called Breaking Points. It’s got Right and Left and one of the best Independent was sources today.

[GannonFan]

It's never a good thing. It wasn't a good thing when the Biden administration bullied social media and news sites to censor anything that didn't coincide perfectly with their views on COVID or vaccines. It wasn't good when the collective media decided to squash the Hunter Biden laptop story until well after the election. And it's certainly not good now when Trump or one of his appointees demand the removal of anyone from the public airwaves because they didn't like what they said. There has been far too much government overreach into public speech both on the airwaves and on the internet. On issues of speech, if people don't like what someone is saying, they are welcome to turn the channel. Very few people in the grand scheme of things actually watch Kimmel - it is a dying vestige of an earlier age of television. But that doesn't justify pushing him off the air. This is not a good thing.

Yes…silencing speech is bad regardless of where it’s coming from. I don’t think what happened in the past compares to what’s currently going on. There are times where one side is more guilty. There can also be significant differences regarding motivations and subjects.

As I previously posted, FCC chair Brendan Carr admits this was part of the project 25 agenda. They were going to do it before Kirk as killed and Kimmel made some fairly benign comments in his monologue.

I don't think you can say one instance of restricting speech in the past is really any worse or better than restricting speech today. There aren't really levels to this, and at lower levels of restricting speech we're okay, but not at the higher levels. Freedom of Speech is that, it's freedom of speech. Period. Going after and attacking the credibility of those three researchers who put out that Great Barrington Declaration wasn't a good thing, it was eliminating speech of people based on nothing but not wanting them to be heard. The things done behind the scenes to pressure Facebook and Twitter and have them change algorithms so that the Hunter Biden story got squashed wasn't a good thing. Especially when you consider that they could've been doing this all the time, just hopping on the phone and calling those sites to dampen down stories or viewpoints, and it only came to light in this instance because people knew about it before the government acted. Having the head of the FCC threaten the licenses of ABC affiliates if Kimmel wasn't dropped, and basically dropped for being wrong about something that he wasn't really "proven" wrong on until the next day, is not a good thing.

This is where we need the ACLU (where are they? I haven't heard a peep from them in years it seems) or others to stand up, find cases to get behind, and take these issues to court. The reason why our government works, even when there are so many bad actors in the government trying their darndest to mess it up, is that there are three branches to it and it's very hard to co-opt all three of them at the same time (not to mention the federal structure of the country and how not everything is decided at the highest levels). Sure, Trump is issuing decrees every day it seems to run contrary to what this country has routinely stood for, and with Congress being self-neutered for the past couple of decades there's not a lot of hope for the legislature to do much, pending the next election. But the courts have been where Trump has routinely been restrained so far and where he'll continue to be restrained (e.g. look for him to be denied the ability to remove the Fed Gov Lisa Cook for instance). The unfortunate thing about having to go to court is that it takes time, but that's the reality of our government - it takes time to screw it up and it takes time to stop people from screwing it up.

[UNI88]

A fair and balanced media would be great

Unfortunately, the 4th Estate had kicked into overdrive over the past decade, totally unhinged against Trump. Never curious about Biden. Trump is fighting back hard now

The pendulum should start to even out over the coming years*

* but the brutal killing of Charlie Kirk and the fallout from the demonic leftist response to it is a big wildcard

The fallout from the pharisaical rightist response is just as big of a wildcard.

[UNI88]

Yes…silencing speech is bad regardless of where it’s coming from. I don’t think what happened in the past compares to what’s currently going on. There are times where one side is more guilty. There can also be significant differences regarding motivations and subjects.

As I previously posted, FCC chair Brendan Carr admits this was part of the project 25 agenda. They were going to do it before Kirk as killed and Kimmel made some fairly benign comments in his monologue.

I don't think you can say one instance of restricting speech in the past is really any worse or better than restricting speech today. There aren't really levels to this, and at lower levels of restricting speech we're okay, but not at the higher levels. Freedom of Speech is that, it's freedom of speech. Period. Going after and attacking the credibility of those three researchers who put out that Great Barrington Declaration wasn't a good thing, it was eliminating speech of people based on nothing but not wanting them to be heard. The things done behind the scenes to pressure Facebook and Twitter and have them change algorithms so that the Hunter Biden story got squashed wasn't a good thing. Especially when you consider that they could've been doing this all the time, just hopping on the phone and calling those sites to dampen down stories or viewpoints, and it only came to light in this instance because people knew about it before the government acted. Having the head of the FCC threaten the licenses of ABC affiliates if Kimmel wasn't dropped, and basically dropped for being wrong about something that he wasn't really "proven" wrong on until the next day, is not a good thing.

This is where we need the ACLU (where are they? I haven't heard a peep from them in years it seems) or others to stand up, find cases to get behind, and take these issues to court. The reason why our government works, even when there are so many bad actors in the government trying their darndest to mess it up, is that there are three branches to it and it's very hard to co-opt all three of them at the same time (not to mention the federal structure of the country and how not everything is decided at the highest levels). Sure, Trump is issuing decrees every day it seems to run contrary to what this country has routinely stood for, and with Congress being self-neutered for the past couple of decades there's not a lot of hope for the legislature to do much, pending the next election. But the courts have been where Trump has routinely been restrained so far and where he'll continue to be restrained (e.g. look for him to be denied the ability to remove the Fed Gov Lisa Cook for instance). The unfortunate thing about having to go to court is that it takes time, but that's the reality of our government - it takes time to screw it up and it takes time to stop people from screwing it up.

I agree with this but I will say that biden's pressure was more covert while trump's is overt. biden's supporters could argue that he wasn't pressuring the media because it wasn't out in the open. trump isn't even trying to hide it and many/most of his supporters are supporting his efforts. They seem to support anything trump does with blind devotion regardless of whether it's legal. His actions are a problem and the blind support of his followers is just as if not a bigger problem.

Same goes for the weaponization of the DoJ and IC against trump. If (and it's a big IF) it was happening, it was covert. trump's weaponization of the DoJ and IC against his opponents is right there for everyone to see.

[GannonFan]

I don't think you can say one instance of restricting speech in the past is really any worse or better than restricting speech today. There aren't really levels to this, and at lower levels of restricting speech we're okay, but not at the higher levels. Freedom of Speech is that, it's freedom of speech. Period. Going after and attacking the credibility of those three researchers who put out that Great Barrington Declaration wasn't a good thing, it was eliminating speech of people based on nothing but not wanting them to be heard. The things done behind the scenes to pressure Facebook and Twitter and have them change algorithms so that the Hunter Biden story got squashed wasn't a good thing. Especially when you consider that they could've been doing this all the time, just hopping on the phone and calling those sites to dampen down stories or viewpoints, and it only came to light in this instance because people knew about it before the government acted. Having the head of the FCC threaten the licenses of ABC affiliates if Kimmel wasn't dropped, and basically dropped for being wrong about something that he wasn't really "proven" wrong on until the next day, is not a good thing.

This is where we need the ACLU (where are they? I haven't heard a peep from them in years it seems) or others to stand up, find cases to get behind, and take these issues to court. The reason why our government works, even when there are so many bad actors in the government trying their darndest to mess it up, is that there are three branches to it and it's very hard to co-opt all three of them at the same time (not to mention the federal structure of the country and how not everything is decided at the highest levels). Sure, Trump is issuing decrees every day it seems to run contrary to what this country has routinely stood for, and with Congress being self-neutered for the past couple of decades there's not a lot of hope for the legislature to do much, pending the next election. But the courts have been where Trump has routinely been restrained so far and where he'll continue to be restrained (e.g. look for him to be denied the ability to remove the Fed Gov Lisa Cook for instance). The unfortunate thing about having to go to court is that it takes time, but that's the reality of our government - it takes time to screw it up and it takes time to stop people from screwing it up.

I agree with this but I will say that biden's pressure was more covert while trump's is overt. biden's supporters could argue that he wasn't pressuring the media because it wasn't out in the open. trump isn't even trying to hide it and many/most of his supporters are supporting his efforts. They seem to support anything trump does with blind devotion regardless of whether it's legal. His actions are a problem and the blind support of his followers is just as if not a bigger problem.

Same goes for the weaponization of the DoJ and IC against trump. If (and it's a big IF) it was happening, it was covert. trump's weaponization of the DoJ and IC against his opponents is right there for everyone to see.

I don't think it being covert or overt makes much of a difference. And frankly, at least with overt, we know what's happening and can react to it. Like I said, there's been so much already that the courts have blocked Trump from doing, and they will continue to block for the next 4 years, that are the purposeful, designed saving grace of our government. Unfortunately they tend to be reactionary and therefore a little slow, but at least they work.

As for the weaponization of the DoJ and IC, well first, we of course know it was done against Trump, there's no "if" there. Sure, some of it was at the lower levels, like we saw with the case he was convicted on with much judicial bending in New York. But second, the Jack Smith case was ultimately ruled by politics. Trump should have been charged with those charges within a year of Jan 6th, but for political reasons, it was slow walked in order for Trump to still be the candidate to run against and to be a campaign issue in 2024. Unfortunately for the Dems and ultimately the voters, that also led to the disastrous decision by Biden, thinking he was the only candidate who could beat Trump, to not step aside until it was too late and the damage was done. But the effort to use the wheels of justice to line up a candidate and then beat them because of it was always in plain sight, it just didn't come with the crass brashness that accompanies when Trump does the same machinations.

[UNI88]

I agree with this but I will say that biden's pressure was more covert while trump's is overt. biden's supporters could argue that he wasn't pressuring the media because it wasn't out in the open. trump isn't even trying to hide it and many/most of his supporters are supporting his efforts. They seem to support anything trump does with blind devotion regardless of whether it's legal. His actions are a problem and the blind support of his followers is just as if not a bigger problem.

Same goes for the weaponization of the DoJ and IC against trump. If (and it's a big IF) it was happening, it was covert. trump's weaponization of the DoJ and IC against his opponents is right there for everyone to see.

I don't think it being covert or overt makes much of a difference. And frankly, at least with overt, we know what's happening and can react to it. Like I said, there's been so much already that the courts have blocked Trump from doing, and they will continue to block for the next 4 years, that are the purposeful, designed saving grace of our government. Unfortunately they tend to be reactionary and therefore a little slow, but at least they work.

As for the weaponization of the DoJ and IC, well first, we of course know it was done against Trump, there's no "if" there. Sure, some of it was at the lower levels, like we saw with the case he was convicted on with much judicial bending in New York. But second, the Jack Smith case was ultimately ruled by politics. Trump should have been charged with those charges within a year of Jan 6th, but for political reasons, it was slow walked in order for Trump to still be the candidate to run against and to be a campaign issue in 2024. Unfortunately for the Dems and ultimately the voters, that also led to the disastrous decision by Biden, thinking he was the only candidate who could beat Trump, to not step aside until it was too late and the damage was done. But the effort to use the wheels of justice to line up a candidate and then beat them because of it was always in plain sight, it just didn't come with the crass brashness that accompanies when Trump does the same machinations.

I might agree with you about covert or overt no making much of a difference if it weren't for SCOTUS rulings in trump's favor. It's fair to ask if they would have ruled the same if the case involved a Democratic POTUS.

I disagree about there being no "if" there on the weaponization of the DoJ and IC.

It's a matter of opinion but trump's actions following the 2020 election (January 6, calling state officials attempting to coerce them into "finding" votes or no certifying results, etc.) justified an investigation and likely the indictments. He intentionally obstructed the return of classified documents to the point that he had to be served with a subpoena. That investigation and likely the indictments were also justified.

Regardless (or irregardless for CID) of the poor timing, those investigations and indictments were justified by trump's words and actions. They are not examples/proof that the DoJ was weaponized against trump.

[GannonFan]

I don't think it being covert or overt makes much of a difference. And frankly, at least with overt, we know what's happening and can react to it. Like I said, there's been so much already that the courts have blocked Trump from doing, and they will continue to block for the next 4 years, that are the purposeful, designed saving grace of our government. Unfortunately they tend to be reactionary and therefore a little slow, but at least they work.

As for the weaponization of the DoJ and IC, well first, we of course know it was done against Trump, there's no "if" there. Sure, some of it was at the lower levels, like we saw with the case he was convicted on with much judicial bending in New York. But second, the Jack Smith case was ultimately ruled by politics. Trump should have been charged with those charges within a year of Jan 6th, but for political reasons, it was slow walked in order for Trump to still be the candidate to run against and to be a campaign issue in 2024. Unfortunately for the Dems and ultimately the voters, that also led to the disastrous decision by Biden, thinking he was the only candidate who could beat Trump, to not step aside until it was too late and the damage was done. But the effort to use the wheels of justice to line up a candidate and then beat them because of it was always in plain sight, it just didn't come with the crass brashness that accompanies when Trump does the same machinations.

I might agree with you about covert or overt no making much of a difference if it weren't for SCOTUS rulings in trump's favor. It's fair to ask if they would have ruled the same if the case involved a Democratic POTUS.

I disagree about there being no "if" there on the weaponization of the DoJ and IC.

It's a matter of opinion but trump's actions following the 2020 election (January 6, calling state officials attempting to coerce them into "finding" votes or no certifying results, etc.) justified an investigation and likely the indictments. He intentionally obstructed the return of classified documents to the point that he had to be served with a subpoena. That investigation and likely the indictments were also justified.

Regardless (or irregardless for CID) of the poor timing, those investigations and indictments were justified by trump's words and actions. They are not examples/proof that the DoJ was weaponized against trump.

Show me the case so far (and there are many both for Trump's positions as well as against) where the political party of the President would've made a difference in the ruling.

And I never said his actions around Jan 6th weren't justification for prosecution, of course they were. But we played political games with it and the DOJ to ensure he was there as a candidate, a weakened one, in 2024, and that blew up spectacularly.

[kalm]

[GannonFan]

Where were the Antifa protests when the Biden administration orchestrated manipulations of social media sites with pressure behind the scenes to say what they wanted them to say? Where were the Antifa protests when mass media and Dem elites orchestrated a squashing of the Hunter Biden laptop story so it went away? Where were the Antifa protests when people were losing their jobs due to vaccine mandates? Antifa doesn't seem to be all that good at sniffing out all the fascist tendencies.

[kalm]

Where were the Antifa protests when the Biden administration orchestrated manipulations of social media sites with pressure behind the scenes to say what they wanted them to say? Where were the Antifa protests when mass media and Dem elites orchestrated a squashing of the Hunter Biden laptop story so it went away? Where were the Antifa protests when people were losing their jobs due to vaccine mandates? Antifa doesn't seem to be all that good at sniffing out all the fascist tendencies.

I think you’re kind of proving the point of the tweet here.

[kalm]

Yes…silencing speech is bad regardless of where it’s coming from. I don’t think what happened in the past compares to what’s currently going on. There are times where one side is more guilty. There can also be significant differences regarding motivations and subjects.

As I previously posted, FCC chair Brendan Carr admits this was part of the project 25 agenda. They were going to do it before Kirk as killed and Kimmel made some fairly benign comments in his monologue.

I don't think you can say one instance of restricting speech in the past is really any worse or better than restricting speech today. There aren't really levels to this, and at lower levels of restricting speech we're okay, but not at the higher levels. Freedom of Speech is that, it's freedom of speech. Period. Going after and attacking the credibility of those three researchers who put out that Great Barrington Declaration wasn't a good thing, it was eliminating speech of people based on nothing but not wanting them to be heard. The things done behind the scenes to pressure Facebook and Twitter and have them change algorithms so that the Hunter Biden story got squashed wasn't a good thing. Especially when you consider that they could've been doing this all the time, just hopping on the phone and calling those sites to dampen down stories or viewpoints, and it only came to light in this instance because people knew about it before the government acted. Having the head of the FCC threaten the licenses of ABC affiliates if Kimmel wasn't dropped, and basically dropped for being wrong about something that he wasn't really "proven" wrong on until the next day, is not a good thing.

This is where we need the ACLU (where are they? I haven't heard a peep from them in years it seems) or others to stand up, find cases to get behind, and take these issues to court. The reason why our government works, even when there are so many bad actors in the government trying their darndest to mess it up, is that there are three branches to it and it's very hard to co-opt all three of them at the same time (not to mention the federal structure of the country and how not everything is decided at the highest levels). Sure, Trump is issuing decrees every day it seems to run contrary to what this country has routinely stood for, and with Congress being self-neutered for the past couple of decades there's not a lot of hope for the legislature to do much, pending the next election. But the courts have been where Trump has routinely been restrained so far and where he'll continue to be restrained (e.g. look for him to be denied the ability to remove the Fed Gov Lisa Cook for instance). The unfortunate thing about having to go to court is that it takes time, but that's the reality of our government - it takes time to screw it up and it takes time to stop people from screwing it up.

In theory, speech is speech. I get that. But in practice, there are certainly different levels restrictions. SCOTUS found that the plaintiffs couldn’t demonstrate constitutional protections on speech. If there was throttling of the GBD by the government through coercion it wasn’t proven. Attacks on the credibility of the authors is another interesting 1A question.

Bottom line for me here is that NEITHER the government nor corporations who wield massive power themselves should be trusted. Further, in the current situation, all three branches have been largely co-opted.