What principle would that be? The presumption of innocence?

What? You believe that pseudoscience? Figures.

You should see Biden’s pick for Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Kristen Clarke. Early writings reveal her to be a legit racial supremacist in her younger days.

BSA President Kristen Clarke '97 wasn't here for the Jeffries lecture. But in a letter to the editors of The Crimson, Clarke made a series of assertions cerily reminiscent of the CUNY professor's racist theories. Among them, was the following: "Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities--something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1994/11/4/clarke-should-retract-statements-pbtbwo-years/

Sick shit.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-kristen-clarke-doj-civil-rights-division

It’s been tried many times before. But times are strange.

So the true purpose/meaning of America is to have an electoral college? I'm curious as to how you would rationalize that America evaporates with the electoral college...

Do you mean to say that since the Democrats would foreseeably win the next few election cycles, the sky would fall? Are you just making a partisan quip with no supporting argument or premise?

It is my view that this is a precursor of things to come.

The Electoral College is a pivotal part of the Madisonian model, which shouldn’t be altered on some whim, apparently, because the development of mass media and the internet makes it easy to research the candidates...this from the party that arguably controls most mass media and the internet.

I prefer the electoral college simply because no one region contains the absolute majority of electoral votes required to elect a president.

Nancy Pelosi appointed Eric Swalwell as Impeachment Manager.

Swalwell was proven just a month ago to have relations with a CCP spy, and has since spent the remainder of his time trying to nullify a certain presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/11/what-we-know-about-rep-eric-swalwells-ties-an-alleged-chinese-spy/

House Dems move to amend the constitution and abolish the electoral college. Goodbye America

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/14/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hj+res+14%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1

Trump about to speak after days of silence:

For fucks sake....

Oh yes, when nobody publicly says that they are going to attempt an insurrection tomorrow, it obviously wasn't an insurrection! Rhe storming of the Capitol Hill was a logical and obvious consequence to all the bullshit perpetrated earlier by Trump & the gang. It's no surprise that people who believe in Q-Anon bullshit do take these things seriously... when it's the biggest scam in history.

For example, the ex-Tweeter in Chief did tweet things like this one from last year December 26th:

I’m not saying that nobody planned an insurrection, I’m saying that Trump didn’t plan or incite one. I would even say there were elements that had insurrection in mind, and they should be punished accordingly. I get why you’d try to misrepresent my point but I’m not going to fall for it myself. The president calling for a protest is one thing, but calling for or inciting an insurrection is quite another, especially in the land of the 1st amendment. Blaming him for the actions of others will require more evidence.

Trump has been unequivocal about riots and law and order, before and after the riot at Capitol Hill. Trump was often criticized for being too hard on protesters, for instance on those who for days laid siege to the Whitehouse in the summer. (Trump’s opponents went so far as to pretend he did it for a photo op, even though the DOJ’s plan to push back protesters occurred long before any discussion of Trump leaving the Whitehouse).

So if your logical conclusion to Trump’s claims is violent insurrection, then you’re thinking like the very same nutters who sought insurrection at the Capitol Hill.

The big problem is there is no evidence of any plan for violent insurrection. We don’t even need to pick and choose disparate and ambiguous words from an hour long speech to make the case because he was quite explicit about plan C: “We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women”.

Might he be lying and, unbeknownst to everyone but a bunch of Q-tards, plotting a violent insurrection? It’s certainly possible. And frankly, I don’t blame people for believing it. The media has been pumping that sort of conspiracy theory for quite some time, so it’s no wonder that both Trump’s opponents and some of his supporters have come to believe it. Up until the rally the media was running with the conspiracy theory that he’d evoke martial law or the insurrection act. So it’s no surprise that some showed up for battle. What the media never showed was Trump’s explicit desire to do it legally and according to the constitution, which is his right, and which many have done before him. Perhaps if they did, there would be no such violence.

Like I said, criminals who are proficient liars will be allowed to go unpunished, if we allow intention to be substituted with ignorance. Notice your quoted statement indicates absolutely nothing about Trump's intentions, so it provides no argument for a lack of intent. It's only a statement about what he claims to know about the intent of others. And we know he's a proficient liar. So his claimed ignorance of the intent of the others is nothing but a lie intended to substitute intent with ignorance.

Donald Trump said he wanted to contest the results legally and peacefully. Not only that, but he has been quite opposed to riots, violence and vandalism for the entirety of his presidency. There is zero evidence he wanted any violence or riot or insurrection to occur. His speech is protected by the 1st amendment, and does not rise to the level of “immanent lawless action”.

See the simple fact? He did not tell the participants at the rally, that there was nothing short of insurrection which could be done now, and advise them to go home in peace. No, he riled up their anger and frustration and told them to march to the capitol and fight. He might claim that he had no intent because he was truly ignorant, but criminal law does not allow you to substitute intent with ignorance because it would be a loophole allowing criminals who are proficient liars, to go unpunished.

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

It’s an NBC-affiliated local news site from Salt Lake City. You guess wrong.

I don’t believe Antifa had anything to do with the capitol riots.

Here’s another.

Sullivan, who is the founder of Insurgence USA, a social justice group that calls itself anti-fascist and protests police brutality, was detained by Washington police for about an hour and a half Thursday night, a day after he talked to local and national media about what he witnessed Wednesday.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50083768/utah-activist-inside-us-capitol-says-woman-killed-was-first-to-try-and-enter-house-chamber

I said I wouldn’t doubt it. Nonetheless, at least one man was arrested for weapons charges, and of course let go.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/08/prosecutors-wont-proceed-charges-against-michigan-woman-arrested-capitol-storming/6602945002/

You're right. I should have limited my comments to the state of conservatism in the U.S. Here, it seems, we're witnessing a sort of rebirth of the views held by the John Birch Society, which was once denounced by conservatives.

The fate of conservatism is to be dragged in a direction not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of politics. Because they cannot alter change, and due to a fondness for authority and order, conservatives are often the hand-maiden of socialism, insofar as compromises and appeasement have led to greater state control (See Bismarck and the foundation of the modern welfare state). This control has not only served to hinder the rise of socialism, but also any path to liberty.

Or Trump has been removed or will resign. I guess we’ll find out tonight.

Very odd. But the time stamp keeps changing each time you refresh the page.

Of course it’s a assumption, as are yours. That’s what happens when you try to predict the future.

But I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. I don’t think these people are smart enough to coordinate anything so grand. Rather, I believe they are unhinged, drunk on their own conspiracy theories, as they have been for the last 5 years. Just as they are silly enough to impeach a president for made up crimes, to propel a anti-Russian hoax around the world, to impeach him in the last days of his presidency, they are silly enough to criminalize his supporters. That’s not a stretch of the imagination.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin to reintroduce Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act

If you don’t want to discuss the point, it’s fine, but disguising it under righteous indignation is hilarious. It’s catharsis all the way down.

Again, I’m not talking about Trump’s version of “fake news”. Over your head and under your knees, I suppose.

False, I can read. I am talking about the “fake news” as a pretext for censorship.

This bullshit was peddled and popularized by the only person you come in here to run your fucking mouth in support of, so you can fuck right off, you piss-drinking hypocrite.

The term pre-dates Trump’s misuse of it. No amount of couch-fainting can change that.

These private services have been pressured by governments to regulate speech. The Network Enforcement Act out of Germany is one such example. The EU puts much pressure on these companies, as the following article shows.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/technology/facebook-europe.html

In other words, state-enforced truth.

This war against such canards as “fake news”, “misinformation”, or in China’s case, “rumors”, has not only affected right-wingers, but also the left as well.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/26/intv-n26.html

Educate. How is my question stupid?

These are tech companies, not publishers.

Free speech has never encompassed the right to say whatever you wish at my dinner table, nor does it include the right to speak with impunity.

But only because you do not believe in free speech. You have the right to say whatever you want at my dinner table, however, and to do so with impunity. Free speech, the principle and the desire for it, does not disappear with the fact of censorship.

The decentralization of information is undoubtedly a recent affair unlike anything we have seen before. I am of the mind that this is a good thing because it leads to more freedom to express oneself, and as a corollary, to seek and receive information.

I think it was Jaspers who made the point that free speech leads to the distortion of truth, but it also allows for its correction. Censorship leads to both the distortion of truth and its suppression.

Tough shit.

"Specious reasons" means exactly nothing coming from someone who believes the election was stolen.

I never said I believe the election was stolen. But you should be embarrassed that you need Silicon Valley soy-boys to curate information for you.

I think you're right in regards to Weimar. There is an eerie similarity between the treatment of those involved in the protest and those involved in the Reichstag fire. It makes me wonder if Democrats and their GOP enablers are using the "insurrection" conspiracy theory as a pretext to remove civil liberties, particularly against their political opponents.

Now Trump has been censored on all social media platforms for arbitrary and dubious reasons such as "incitement to violence", even though he has for years condemned violence and vandalism, including those who rioted in his name. He's probably going to be impeached for the same dubious reasons.

Anti-Trump lackey’s would not be limited to the left-wing. There are plenty on the right as well. Odd bedfellows. But thanks for the video.

I know you would. You’re a censor. And yes, you can censor me in a variety of ways.

These are tech companies, not publishers, Tim. Your question is a stupid one.

How under right do you make someone else publish your words? A free press includes the freedom to publish and the freedom not to publish. And no one is censoring these people; they can say and publish themselves what they like.

People are being censored by giant monopolies for specious reasons, and oddly enough, some of these monopolies have former executives and lobbyists within the opposing party. Of course people can go elsewhere, but “elsewhere” is becoming increasingly narrow. Parler, a competitor, was denied services for the same specious reasons.

Of course it’s their right. That doesn’t mean it is right. In fact it’s wrong. Yes, I have massive complaints about this and most censorship.

All the anti-Trump lackeys are cheering it on.

It only took a year and a half for Big Tech to move from banning Alex Jones to banning the president of the United States. This development should be concerning for those who are adult enough to curate their own information. At any rate, I'll never doubt the slippery slope again.

During that time Biden threatened Facebook with repealing section 230 on the basis that they are "propagating falsehoods they know to be false", much of which turned out to reflect badly him. So it's no wonder that, after all their censorship, Facebook insiders, lobbyists, and former executives began appearing in the Biden transition team. The rest of Big Tech, including some of Washington's biggest lobbyists, immediately cued in. I guess we now know that any bipartisan efforts to break up Big Tech are DOA, anyway. Who would evoke the Sherman act against their own monopoly?

That's just the digital coup, but it will dovetail into the real one, which is the Democrat's new pressing efforts to erase Trump's presidency and to bar outright his political resurgence. I assume we'll observe all feats of rhetorical magic as they elevate an arbitrary violation of a Twitter policy to the level of high crime and misdemeanor.

No, I do not think racism went away, or else I would not be against identity politics. Believe it or not, I think the descendants of slaves are deserving of some form of reparations. But you cannot do that with identity politics, when you believe all people who have dark skin are deserving of the same. Not only is it racist to think that way, it’s unjust.

They certainly were being discriminated against, and this discrimination was compelled by racist superstition. So I see no benefit in carrying this same racist superstition into the future, especially after the hard-fought battles against it.

No, I limit injustice to individual cases of injustice, which doesn’t involve any reference to a racist hierarchy within Maw’s mental apartheid.

I’m not racist enough to limit justice to this or that racial group.

President/executive branch dog-whistling to known fanatic followers to march on the legislative branch..

If you can't tell the difference between that an other type of protest/riots, then you are indeed the trolliest of trollers.

You’re shown so-called dog-whistles while his talk of peaceful protest is omitted, then you carry on in faith.

Besides the identity politics I had no problem with the anti-police protests, many of which were justified, many of which were not. My problem was with the riots, especially wherever they were directed towards the innocent. The arson, looting, and violence towards fellow citizens and their property is obscene to me. 25 Americans lost their lives and there was over a $1 billion in damage, all of which the tax-payer must pay for. It is possible that many cities will not be able to recover. So much for justice.

The simplest explanation for the disparity between the police response to BLM protests and the Trump protest is that the anti-police protests have long proven to get violent and lead to riot, whereas Trump protests have not. There is nothing wrong with being prepared. The attempt by the DNC and the gutter press to mix race into it is specious at best. After the Trump protest in Washington the disparity will completely reverse.

But the most obvious disparity is in the cultural response. Trump has already been banned from social media for “incitement to violence” whereas BLM, its leaders, its countless enablers have not. In fact, they received corporate donations in the countless of millions, and support from virtue signallers world wide. (We cannot know whether companies like Apple donate because they believe in the cause or because they didn’t want their apple stores looted). The one Trumpist riot is panned as violent rebellion while a wide variety of euphemism is used to explain away the hundreds of BLM riots.

I just don’t get it.

It’s a nice mix, I think. Besides, everyone is conservative about what they think they know.