It's not. I was waiting to see if Crayons would respond to your question and not really expecting it. These folks say all kinds of stuff. People have found previous videos of that African "doctor" talking about the risks of having sex with demons for crying out loud.

The level of BS is truly astounding.

promised by who?

LOL

1. "Free speech" has nothing to do with what happened.
2. the video wasn't destroyed.
3. censorship is a major part of the Republican platform.
4. the Communist Party in America is tiny and harmless.

It always amazes me how people can fill their entire post with fiction and think it isn't.

Free speech is a myth. People erroneously think that if you live in America you have a right to say whatever you want. This has never been true in the past, it's not true today and there's no reason to expect it ever will be.

The 1st Amendment specifically prevents Congress from prohibiting speech. That's all it says. So to violate the 1st Amendment, Congress (not Twitter or Facebook but Congress, specifically) would have to pass a bill which the president would have to sign into law that prohibits speech. Only then is the 1st Amendment violated.

So if a social media platform in the private sector decides for ANY reason that it doesn't want to host a specific video, they have the FREEDOM to take it down no matter how much YOU want private businesses to be FORCED to keep hosting it.

Many companies have policies about what is acceptable and what is not. There's something called "social responsibility" that refers to the general idea that offensive language, pornographic content and things like irresponsible advice should be disallowed.

Now, I'm not going to judge the video based on it's content but I will say that if Twitter, Facebook and YouTube ALL took the video down, it strongly suggests one of two things... a) There is something very wrong with the video or b) all these companies are conspiring against the message.

I'm putting my bet on option "a" because...

1. All of these companies have existing policies that they say the content of the video violated. There's no way they can do this without the risk of a lawsuit that forces them to prove the violation. So chances are high that they can in which case, the authors should have known better (and they probably did).

2. The idea that a video can violate the policies of multiple platforms is not far-fetched.

3. The website for "America's Frontline Doctors", the group that published the video was hosted on a consumer-grade network and is currently down because their account expired. That has "legitimate" written all over it! LOL

3. I can't find a single legitimate reference to America's Frontline Doctors in any medical journal or third party report.

4. I found out that America's Frontline Doctors was funded by the Tea Party. Wow! This just gets better.

5. The message presented by the video suggested that face masks are not helpful and that hydroxychloroquine is a sufficient defense against COVID-19. This is in direct contrast to what qualified medical experts are saying. (But it's exactly what Trump said). Uh-huh.

I know it's standard practice for the right to deny science, but to pose as doctors and advise Americans to dismiss the advice of legitimate professionals is pretty jacked up - especially when the lives hang in balance.

The consensus among medical experts are saying that face masks ARE helpful and hydroxychloroquine is NOT sufficient. Not heeding their advice is killing Americans by the thousands. And to promote that ignorance just to make Trump look better is sickening.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Edo3shKWAAE-aH2?format=jpg&name=small

Based on what? Your say-so? Is that how this conversation is going to go? Reality is whatever you say it is?

The fact is neither of us are there, so neither of us really know. This is why I mentioned the facts that we DO know... like the fact that civil unrest has increased (for whatever reason) since federal troops have arrived.

From there, several rational assumptions can be made.

1. The rioters coincidentally escalated violence after the federal agents arrived.
2. The rioters escalated violence in reaction to the federal presence.
3. The rioters escalated violence in reaction to the federal agents abusive actions and violation of their rights

I think the first assumption is the least likely and the other two add weight to my earlier assertion that the federal agents are there specifically to provoke an escalation.


The federal buildings weren't touched until AFTER the federal goons arrived. As for the rest of the buildings and people there wasn't anything that local authorities weren't able to handle, which is why they never asked for any help.


Says who? Based on what? Is this really all you got? All you're doing to just saying "No, it's not... No, it's not." You're not proving anything other than the irony of calling yourself logical.


Whether that's true or not doesn't change what I said. The fact still remains that neither the city nor the state had requested any assistance from the federal government.

Also, the notion that the city and state refused to protect the people and property of Portland is stated without a shred of evidence and the only people that believe that incredible story are the semi-literate deplorables looking for excuses.

I've made the same observations. I does seem that "hate" is among the words that the right tosses around just to be derogatory. And there is definitely an "I'm rubber you're glue" response pattern on the right.


I think that's largely a result of their own ability to assess the facts being pushed aside by an outrageous narrative. Most of the time, these narratives affirm the erroneous assumptions they've already made. The last thing they want to do is make the effort to research why they are wrong.


Yes, despite how accustomed I am to the right-wing denial of facts, I was still shocked at how far it went to deny or excuse the blatant violations of protocol during the impeachment process. That was one of those events where I thought... "OK, there's no way they can't see the problem here." ...and yet.


They don't look at the bills or the laws. They just simply don't. I've been saying this for years... look at the laws they passed! Look at the bills they want to pass! But they can't seem to shut off the outrage being pumped into their minds by right-wing media channels so instead of focusing on what the politicians are DOING they obsess over what the media is saying about them.

Last night at band practice I listened to our fiddle player bitch about the pediophilia rings organized by the Democrats. Really? BTW, Tom Hanks is apparently a pediophile did you know that? (I'm guessing that means he's not a Trump fan). There's only been one or two times where I have ever been able to lead the conversation to the point about actual legislation and her response was to wave it off with, "I don't know much about how the government works". Really?

These people don't deserve a democracy and I don't think they want one either. What the deplorables want is a tyranny that caters specifically to them. They might deny it but that is in effect precisely what they are asking for.


Yes, on the plus side there are the lessons learned and I do think some of the provisions in the Constitution need to be made more explicit. I would like to see some focus on the separation of power. I would also like to see some attention directed toward the question of enforcement so when a president refuses to comply with demands from Congress, he will suffer DIRE consequences.

We are supposed to be a representative democracy, not a dictatorship. Congress is elected by the people to represent the people. The president is not elected by the people (or Hillary would be president) nor is he/she obliged to represent them. Congress should therefore be the ultimate national authority or we can't call ourselves a democracy.

Republicans have been trying to override the will of the people for a long time now by shifting power from Congress to the president and Trump's administration has taken that to a whole new level reminiscent of the fascist shutdown of democratic systems in the 1930's. Fortunately for us, it's Trump not Hitler or the transition would have already been done.


I think a parliamentary system is more efficient in the sense that the head of state and the head of government are two separate jobs. In our system, the president does both and when that president is as inept as Trump, the impact is tremendous. In a parliamentary system, the head of state, usually a monarch, handles the symbolic pomp and diplomacy while the head of government, usually the prime minister rolls his sleeves up to focus on actual government.

If we were a parliamentary system (using British rules), Nancy Pelosi would be our prime minister by virtue of the fact that she is the majority leader in the House. I would consider that alone to be a giant improvement over the situation we have now.

Meanwhile, if Trump was actually a king (using British rules), he would have far less authority than he has now as president. So, yes - I believe you are correct in saying a parliament would be more balanced.

BTW, the monarch that the British are "stuck" with has a current approval rating of 81%. The president that only 24% of the American people voted for has a current approval rating of 37%. So it seems that per capita more Americans are stuck with a head of state they don't want than British people are AND they are paying more for it. American taxpayers cover millions of dollars in living expenses for the First Family. The British monarchy pays for their own expenses leaving security as the ONLY expense covered by British taxpayers.

Just another example of how we Americans are getting a shittier deal but are led believe it's the best deal ever.

I agree that it seems he can be effective when he chooses to be but I think that's an illusion created by his success with one specific group of people.

I'll try to explain this metaphorically...

A president has two very different "outside lines"... Line-1 goes to the politicians that a president is expected to work with. This line requires a command of politics because everyone on that line is going to be a political expert. Line-2 goes to the masses in America of which few are as politically astute as those on line-1.

Now, I recently read an op-ed that suggested how Trump surprised the GOP and took the primary. The author pointed out that main-line Republicans were out of touch with the people. I think these people, such as Jeb Bush were probably more focused on Line-1, with concerns like world domination and corporate empires. Trump was more focused on Line-2 which is what made him the populist in 2016.

It's worth pointing out the difference because it explains how success as a populist on Line-2 doesn't always translate to success as a president on Line-1. Indeed, Trump succeeded on Line-2 and won the presidency, but as a president he failed miserably on Line-1.

This is because Trump is politically inept. So, he can't pick up Line-1 without looking like an idiot and world leaders have all lost respect for him.

But on Line-2 it's a different story because we are dealing with normal people who for the most part have a very limited understanding of politics.

Trump's entire career can be summed up as a long succession of confidence games in which he looks for marks... people who are too stupid to figure out they are being screwed. This is why he has a host of fraud charges that have been put on hold while he remains in office. Finding stupid people to screw is the most important skill for any con artist and Trump is an expert at it.

As it turns out, only about 24% of the people on Line-2 were foolish enough to fall for Trump's con-game, but given the other factors you mentioned that 24% put him close enough to a victory that the EC was able to tilt the table enough to give him the presidency.

One more analogy to sum this up... Trump's isolated success in 2016 wasn't a matter of hitting home runs in the big leagues as much as putting on an act for the little leagues.


I'm not so sure. For decades now, conservatives have been pelted with "pro-business" rhetoric designed to perpetuate the misconception that as a people we are entirely dependent on the business interests that create the very situations they complain about.

I actually know conservatives that forget they are on welfare when they bitch about entitlement programs. It doesn't make logical sense but it doesn't have to... the conditioning has penetrated deep into their emotional core asn as such they are bound to bite any hand that feeds. I honestly think their best hope is to lose elections.


Yes! Hatred is a very powerful emotion with a Pavlov trigger... No facts or logic are needed, just triggers. And extreme politics is hatred's biggest fan.

We can find hate being leveraged on the left too, but there it seem more limited to private sector advocacies. In mainstream politics, especially within the government it seems the alt-right is the only user of hatred.


Some people will call that an example of hatred toward Trump and it's hard to argue with that, but I don't think that hatred is an overriding factor. I think the overriding factor is in the facts and logic that expose Trump for the threat that he is to the well-being of the American people, even those that support him.

In fact, I would even go so far as to say that a LOT of what comes off as hatred for Trump is more about the frustration we have with his supporters that refuse to consider the facts.

What about those greasy little wops? Isn't that what you are? A dago? Wops never assimilated either. We just think they did because America adapted to their culture. Today pizza is as American as apple pie. This is how America works, it changes as it adapts to the people that come here. It's why we call it a melting pot and it's one of the great things about America. Too bad each influx of culture is resisted by people who are scared shitless of change.

So... just start shooting and figure things out later? No offense but that seems kinda dumb.

Who do you think is going to organize conscription?

And even if they could, then what? Everyone is conscripted, everyone is at war. That seems to be the extent of your vision so far. I hope that's not it.

OK

I see you've responded with numerous posts - I'm going to try to consolidate. It should be easy if they turn out being more of the fluff I see in this one. zzzz


The Bundies were not about freedom. They set fire to federal land, refused to pay the fees for grazing on federal land and resisted federal authorities that were trying to enforce the law. Be real... If they were black you would have been cheering the feds, just like you are now. But they were white and they were ranchers and when they resisted the authorities with guns, you got warm fuzzies and all of a sudden they're about freedom.


I'm not asking Obama, I'm asking you.


WTF makes you think I'm hiding?


All that means is you're old. Get over yourself gramps.


Not America... the Constitution of the United States of America. The protesters are not the ones violating the Constitution, the Trump Administration is.

Seriously old man, you really need to assess this situation a little better. I don't expect you to get over your prejudices but you should at least be aware of which side of the line you are standing on.

I'm guessing you don't believe that Trump or the federal agents are violating the Constitution.

Or would that matter to you? You said you would never obstruct what the President is doing. Was that specifically a reference to Trump?

Or are you saying that you would never go to obstruct what any president is doing even if what that president is doing is a violation of the Constitution?

I kinda had a feeling that's what you were referring to - I just wasn't sure.

I have no doubt that militias are getting pretty excited right about now. There's already an infiltration of Proud Boys and Boogaloos in Portland that suit up the same way the federal agents do which is why clear identification is such a big issue for Portland authorities.

But I really don't see much that distinguishes these militia boys from street gangs though, other than a penchant for shopping at army surplus stores. I don't see any defined objectives or agendas. It seems they just want to kick ass and that's about the extent of it. More times than not people with that attitude wind up losing.

So, do you have any idea what these militia groups actually hope to accomplish?

I hope it doesn't but what makes you say that? Anything specific or does it just seem inevitable?