Kamala Harris for Pres

[LogGrad98]

We need government regulation on social media because they allow people to post things I don’t like. This is modern day book burnings, censorship and an extremist view. Same view Kamala and Tim have.

You’re for putting inappropriate aged books in elementary schools, yet you don’t want to have people speak about things you don’t like. You care more about immigrants than American citizens.

The constitution is an amazing creation that we could all live under for 240+ years with the desired outcome which was eloquently stated in the preamble and now the extremes from both sides are trying to chip away at it because they are morally superior beings that know better especially in the more modern world. Monitor speech 1a, monitor guns 2a, abolish the electoral college 12a, open borders and amnesty 4a, ect… the extremes and their positions are what’s hurts our country and moving forward in a successful way.

Add burn books to the list as well. Also add no funding for mental health as a sub-point for controlling guns. Heck if we go the other extreme we're looking at bankrupting social security within a decade as well, so add abolish social services except for the rich. Now we're getting somewhere.

The question is, which extreme is more livable for the majority of Americans. Which does the least harm and potentially the most good, as limited as that might be. We've already seen the mess trickle down economics has made of our social support structure which affects millions of Americans, but the counter point is we have seen a gigantic increase in billionaire wealth in that same time period. Extreme health care costs due to deregulation, but more money in the coffers of the medical industrial complex and big pharma.

In the end, since we are a 2 party system, it's almost always choosing the lesser of 2 evils. I'm just shocked how many see less money for billionaires and more services and support for the poor and middle class as "evil" in the first place. There's a huge cult movement in America, and that's it. It's been building for decades, but it is firmly entrenched now. Worship of the rich at the expense of the masses is the mantra. Trump is their destroying angel, bent on destroying the last vestiges of the systems that make societies strong in the first place, the fact that we willingly give some of our excess to help those less fortunate. But that's all shifted now. So yeah, let's talk about the evil of suggesting limited individual rights a little bit so we get fewer school shootings perhaps. We have limits on rights all over the place, necessary to support a functioning society. No other developed nation collapsed under extreme tyranny when they limited gun access, but they also have barely the tiniest fraction of mass shootings and violent crime we do. We lost sight of the fact that the rights were enshrined for a specific end, and that the rights themselves are not the end envisioned. But they have become holy to the point of sacrifice of anything else that supports a functioning society so we do not violate the sacrosanct "rights" the founders placed into the Constitution.

Remember, they also gave us an amendment process because they knew times would change, clear and present threats to them in they era would fade and change, and new threats would emerge. None of them had an inkling about anything akin to school shootings, but they gave us the amendment process so we could adjust as needed to address the threats of the time. But we are happy to bury our heads in the blanket of rights which in many ways is just no longer sufficient for what our society needs. How easily we lose the lessons of the past.

 

[Bucknutz]

Add burn books to the list as well. Also add no funding for mental health as a sub-point for controlling guns. Heck if we go the other extreme we're looking at bankrupting social security within a decade as well, so add abolish social services except for the rich. Now we're getting somewhere.

The question is, which extreme is more livable for the majority of Americans. Which does the least harm and potentially the most good, as limited as that might be. We've already seen the mess trickle down economics has made of our social support structure which affects millions of Americans, but the counter point is we have seen a gigantic increase in billionaire wealth in that same time period. Extreme health care costs due to deregulation, but more money in the coffers of the medical industrial complex and big pharma.

In the end, since we are a 2 party system, it's almost always choosing the lesser of 2 evils. I'm just shocked how many see less money for billionaires and more services and support for the poor and middle class as "evil" in the first place. There's a huge cult movement in America, and that's it. It's been building for decades, but it is firmly entrenched now. Worship of the rich at the expense of the masses is the mantra. Trump is their destroying angel, bent on destroying the last vestiges of the systems that make societies strong in the first place, the fact that we willingly give some of our excess to help those less fortunate. But that's all shifted now. So yeah, let's talk about the evil of suggesting limited individual rights a little bit so we get fewer school shootings perhaps. We have limits on rights all over the place, necessary to support a functioning society. No other developed nation collapsed under extreme tyranny when they limited gun access, but they also have barely the tiniest fraction of mass shootings and violent crime we do. We lost sight of the fact that the rights were enshrined for a specific end, and that the rights themselves are not the end envisioned. But they have become holy to the point of sacrifice of anything else that supports a functioning society so we do not violate the sacrosanct "rights" the founders placed into the Constitution.

Remember, they also gave us an amendment process because they knew times would change, clear and present threats to them in they era would fade and change, and new threats would emerge. None of them had an inkling about anything akin to school shootings, but they gave us the amendment process so we could adjust as needed to address the threats of the time. But we are happy to bury our heads in the blanket of rights which in many ways is just no longer sufficient for what our society needs. How easily we lose the lessons of the past.

Just a quick question for you, does cheap labor help or hurt American Billionaires?

 

[Bucknutz]

Add burn books to the list as well.

If someone could show me actual burning books, where I can't go online or pick one up at a book store right now, then I would be behind this.

Also add no funding for mental health as a sub-point for controlling guns.

This is a big issue, and mental health is just not about controlling guns.

Heck if we go the other extreme we're looking at bankrupting social security within a decade as well, so add abolish social services except for the rich. Now we're getting somewhere.

Agreed

The question is, which extreme is more livable for the majority of Americans. Which does the least harm and potentially the most good, as limited as that might be. We've already seen the mess trickle down economics has made of our social support structure which affects millions of Americans, but the counter point is we have seen a gigantic increase in billionaire wealth in that same time period.

What other economic system has brought more people out of poverty than capitalism? There will always be an unequal result.

Extreme health care costs due to deregulation, but more money in the coffers of the medical industrial complex and big pharma.

I think we both view this issue the same. There needs to be a complete overhaul of our medical system.

In the end, since we are a 2 party system, it's almost always choosing the lesser of 2 evils. I'm just shocked how many see less money for billionaires and more services and support for the poor and middle class as "evil" in the first place. There's a huge cult movement in America, and that's it. It's been building for decades, but it is firmly entrenched now. Worship of the rich at the expense of the masses is the mantra.

The top 1% are paying in the most taxes:

• The top 1 percent’s income share rose from 22.2 percent in 2020 to 26.3 percent in 2021 and its share of federal income taxes paid rose from 42.3 percent to 45.8 percent.

The top 1% of income earners are paying almost half of the taxes. How much more of their income should go to taxes? How much of a budget cut across the board should there be in the federal government? Because I see there are multiple issues here.
I think most Americans are happy helping with people of need. When you take in millions more in poverty and focus on them over existing Americans is where the issues start. More resources are needed to help the immigrants and so the resources are not spread across everyone. It's a resource and spending issue for services and supports, which is because we let millions of poverty into our country that need help. We haven't even taken care of our own.

Trump is their destroying angel, bent on destroying the last vestiges of the systems that make societies strong in the first place, the fact that we willingly give some of our excess to help those less fortunate. But that's all shifted now. So yeah, let's talk about the evil of suggesting limited individual rights a little bit so we get fewer school shootings perhaps. We have limits on rights all over the place, necessary to support a functioning society. No other developed nation collapsed under extreme tyranny when they limited gun access, but they also have barely the tiniest fraction of mass shootings and violent crime we do. We lost sight of the fact that the rights were enshrined for a specific end, and that the rights themselves are not the end envisioned. But they have become holy to the point of sacrifice of anything else that supports a functioning society so we do not violate the sacrosanct "rights" the founders placed into the Constitution.

Limiting the rights of many because of the few? That's the policy you want?

Remember, they also gave us an amendment process because they knew times would change, clear and present threats to them in they era would fade and change, and new threats would emerge. None of them had an inkling about anything akin to school shootings, but they gave us the amendment process so we could adjust as needed to address the threats of the time. But we are happy to bury our heads in the blanket of rights which in many ways is just no longer sufficient for what our society needs. How easily we lose the lessons of the past.

What amendments are needed or rights limited to fix America? I don't see any. I see almost all our issues as an economical one. Fix and Help Americans first, then help others. Same with a family. Would people be upset if their parents gave away resources to others they don't know over their children who are in need? Same with this country. It's not a race, gender, wealth issue, it's an economic one. Can the wealthy help more, absolutely.

 

[MT Steve]

We absolutely need regulation of social media companies that are exploiting consumers to wreck our democracy. Their algorithms are leading to mental health issues in teens, communities coming under attack by paid Russian actors, and rampant disinformation in our politics.

Who decides what is misinformation and what isn't? Who decides what content is dangerous to mental health and what isn't?

Ponder that for a second, and hopefully you see how terrifying that can quickly become. The first amendment is a Godsend, and yes you can point at issues created by freedom of speech, but the alternative is far worse, and history is littered with examples of why.

 

[fishonjazz]

We need government regulation on social media because they allow people to post things that drive children to commit suicide.

Fify

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

"Social media should be regulated so that harmful content isn't posted" is great in theory, until the group you strongly disagree with is in charge of deciding what constitutes harmful content.

I'm sure the people in this thread advocating for it wouldn't like it much at all if those in charge decided that any content pertaining to the LGBT community is harmful to children and should therefore be banned on social media. And then you see why it's way too much power to grant the government, and why the 1st amendment is a crucial right.

 

[Bucknutz]

Fify

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Why are children on Social Media? Sounds like a parent issue...

 

[Bucknutz]

"Social media should be regulated so that harmful content isn't posted" is great in theory, until the group you strongly disagree with is in charge of deciding what constitutes harmful content.

I'm sure the people in this thread advocating for it wouldn't like it much at all if those in charge decided that any content pertaining to the LGBT community is harmful to children and should therefore be banned on social media. And then you see why it's way too much power to grant the government, and why the 1st amendment is a crucial right.

Completely agree. It's great when they take down people that you dont agree with, until it happens to them. More speech is always better than less speech.

 

[fishonjazz]

Why are children on Social Media? Sounds like a parent issue...

Why are kids not allowed to drive? Just let them drive and have the parents take care of any issues that might arise right?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Completely agree. It's great when they take down people that you dont agree with, until it happens to them. More speech is always better than less speech.

See for me it's not about "people I don't agree with" it's about "people that are using social media to cause harm to others"


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

Why are kids not allowed to drive? Just let them drive and have the parents take care of any issues that might arise right?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

We're talking about speech. There's very obvious reasons why the constitution doesn't let the government regulate speech like they regulate driving.

 

[MT Steve]

See for me it's not about "people I don't agree with" it's about "people that are using social media to cause harm to others"


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Again, great in theory until the government strongly disagrees with you on what constitutes "causing harm to others". What if the government decides that includes people who provide resources to LGBT kids?

And no, that's not a hypothetical:

Heritage Foundation Says That Of Course GOP Will Use KOSA To Censor LGBTQ Content

We’ve talked a lot about KOSA, the “Kids Online Safety Act” that has massive bipartisan support in Congress. The latest version was introduced with 26 Senators as sponsors or co-sponsors. We’ve exp…

www.techdirt.com

 

[fishonjazz]

We're talking about speech. There's very obvious reasons why the constitution doesn't let the government regulate speech like they regulate driving.

Eh speech is already regulated if it is dangerous. Go to the airport and tell out "I have a bomb" and see if you get in any trouble.

I think the equivalent needs to be regulated on social media.

Like if I post your address on social media and say that you are a pedophile and have children locked in your basement then I think that should be regulated.

If your daughter posts a picture of herself on social media then I don't think I should be allowed to make a comment like "you look like a stupid fat bitch". I dont see why those things should be protected.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

Eh speech is already regulated if it is dangerous. Go to the airport and tell out "I have a bomb" and see if you get in any trouble.

Jesus... just say you don't understand the first amendment.

 

[fishonjazz]

Again, great in theory until the government strongly disagrees with you on what constitutes "causing harm to others". What if the government decides that includes people who provide resources to LGBT kids?

And no, that's not a hypothetical:

Heritage Foundation Says That Of Course GOP Will Use KOSA To Censor LGBTQ Content

We’ve talked a lot about KOSA, the “Kids Online Safety Act” that has massive bipartisan support in Congress. The latest version was introduced with 26 Senators as sponsors or co-sponsors. We’ve exp…

www.techdirt.com

See I think providing resources to someone is different than calling people stupid fat bitches and lying about an establishment being a den of sex traffickers.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Jesus... just say you don't understand the first amendment.

Ok.
Anywho, I think speech that hurts other people should be curbed.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

See I think providing resources to someone is different than calling people stupid fat bitches and lying about an establishment being a den of sex traffickers.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Then you should understand that arguing for regulation of social media includes arguing for regulation of social media by whoever is in charge at the government level, regardless of how hard left or hard right they lean.

You can't just say "I want regulation of social media, but only for speech that I think is harmful." It's all or nothing, because those who strongly disagree with you aren't just going to sit on their hands when they are the ones in power.

 

[fishonjazz]

Jesus... just say you don't understand the first amendment.

You missed the majority of my post btw.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MT Steve]

Ok.
Anywho, I think speech that hurts other people should be curbed.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Unless you can agree with the statement "I think speech that the government decides hurts other people should be curbed, regardless of which party is in power", then you *really* shouldn't want regulation.

 

[fishonjazz]

Then you should understand that arguing for regulation of social media includes arguing for regulation of social media by whoever is in charge at the government level, regardless of how hard left or hard right they lean.

You can't just say "I want regulation of social media, but only for speech that I think is harmful." It's all or nothing, because those who strongly disagree with you aren't just going to sit on their hands when they are the ones in power.

Nah. I think just that speech that is harmful should be regulated. I'm not saying I know how that would look, just that I think it would be a good thing.

Just like I can say all kinds of things in an airport but not certain things.

Or I can talk about lots of stuff in a movie theater but I can't yell out fire.

Same with social media. I think we should be able to say lots of stuff. Most stuff. But not all stuff.


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk