While some idiots go around monkey-howling about advisory agencies that would help media outlets identify dangerous misinformation, but with no actual regulatory power, they want us to look away while their white supremacist hero, now proven to be totally disrespectful of democratic elections and our Constitution, has vowed to take true authoritarian measures if America is stupid enough to return him to power. trump has vowed to: - move the FCC to direct presidential control. What can be fucking worse for free speech and democracy than a proven narcissist corrupt titty baby with the power to shut down media outlets who happen to upset him? - move the FTC to direct presidential control. A perfect setup that would be for an obvious crook, to have the power to ignore antitrust and consumer protection laws, to favor his own greedy interests and to punish those who disagree with his corruptions. - impound funds that Congress has authorized, to deny funding for programs he doesn't like. - strip employment protections from Federal civil servants, to make it easier to remove them if he feels they stand in the way of his authoritarianism. - get rid of law enforcement personnel who investigate corruption. - get rid of intelligence agents who work against his dictatorial allies. - remove independence from the Department of Justice, to make that department his own personal agenda enforcement agency and to focus the FBI upon his own chosen targets.
We only have to look at the list of trump's pardons to know how he'd use the justice system and law enforcement. Steve Bannon: trump's campaign chief strategist raised over $25 million fraudulently, then laundered that money to use much of it for his own personal expenses. Michael Ashley: executive at Lend America with whom trump had a financing connection convicted of bank fraud. Elliott Brody: Republican National Committee finance chair who plead guilty for his role in defrauding a Malaysian investment fund, which the trump administration tried to bury. Duke Cunningham: Republican Congressman convicted of accepting bribes. Paul Erickson: guilty of wire fraud and money laundering, part of trump's association with Russian operatives Albert Pirro: convicted of tax evasion and conspiracy, husband of Fox maga lunatic trump defender Jeanine Pirro. I could go on... there are many more, mostly involving convicts/defendants with lots of money and/or lots of personal connections to trump... Manafort, Stone, Kushner, and on and on and on.
Now, here's an easy choice for ethical Americans who actually value democracy, but a hard admission for hack hypocrites whose goal is white authoritarianism: Of the following which is worse for democracy?; A) the leader of the country appoints an official to monitor social media sites, to advise media outlets when dangerous misinformation has been posted. That official has no enforcement power to have those posts removed, and no power to force media sites to publish retractions or any other material. versus B) the leader of the country takes direct control over the government agency that regulates what can and can be posted on media venues, with the power to force removal of whatever it deems objectionable, and with the power to enforce punishments on those who do not comply. For the obtuse and/or the inattentive, choice A is what Joe Biden proposed to do, which seems almost like an ethical obligation from any responsible leader but was painted falsely by dishonest hacks. Choice B is what donald trump has vowed to do if Americans are stupid enough to return him to power.
Both choices are exactly the same, just worded differently. You're dead wrong when you say 'That official has no enforcement power to have those posts removed, and no power to force media sites to publish retractions or any other material.' Democrats have already worked with all social media providers to censor content they object to. Furthermore, you'd have to have blind trust in the government to give them that kind of power. It elevates them to the arbiter of all information. Nothing good can come from that and only an obedient cuck would be in favor of it.
why the fuck would want the government advising anything? and how the fuck would they know what is dangerous? if i posted that lab leak is true, is that dangerous? what if i said it doesnt seem necessary to vaccinate a healthy 15 year old? what if i said the biden laptop was not russian disinfo? even if those things are wrong the govt shouldnt be in my business and has no reason to weigh in on what we are saying. can i get some fucking privacy to speak my mind? this is kind of a social media site here. do we need oversight by the gestapo? the ministry of truth is incredibly dangerous and one of the worst ideas i have ever heard seriously presented by a mainstream party. why do you want to be controlled? are you scared of ideas and freedom?
Bullshit. Can you even read? The first is advisory, the second is regulatory with the power of enforcement. It's trump's plan that can enforce compliance and dole out punishments, not Biden's. Bullshit again. It's the media sites themselves that made any censoring decisions, not the Democrats. Under trump's plan it would be the government that could force censorship by shutting down media outlets he finds objectionable to his shit self. Biden's plan had no such power. It's trump's plan that does. I guess you don't mind being a blind puppet to a shitstain. Which explains why you'd favor trump, who vows direct control over media outlets.
