Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 5188
    MEMBERS
  • 140443
    MESSAGES
  • 34
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Political Corruption   The Serious You: How Current Events Affect You

Started 5/9/22 by WALTER784; 275583 views.
Msg 2076 of 2252
In reply toRe: msg 2075
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Mar-30

US Justice Alito Blasts US Government and Facebook “Partnership”—The Government Treats Big Tech “like subordinates”Because They Have “Section 230 and anti-trust in its pocket” [VIDEO]

By Patty McMurray
Mar. 18, 2024 6:20 pm

Today, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Murthy v. Missouri Supreme Court free speech case.
 
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, which concerns communications between federal government officials and social media companies on their content moderation policies and whether this amounts to government suppression or speech censorship. Missouri, Louisiana, and five individuals filed suit arguing that the federal government violated their First Amendment speech rights by influencing social media companies to censor their posts related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 elections.
 
In a tweet this morning, Senator Rand Paul called the case the most consequential free speech case in U.S. history. He tweeted, “This isn’t just about social media companies; it’s a critical examination of government overreach. The Biden administration and FBI’s efforts to influence Big Tech into silencing dissent tramples on the 1st Amendment. Our focus must be on preventing government censorship, not compelling private entities to act as censors. This case could redefine our free speech.”
 
Earlier today, we shared excerpts from oral arguments made by US Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, whose comments about the First Amendment rocked social media.
 
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways at the most important time. I mean, what would you have the government do? She asked the Lousiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga.
 
I’ve heard you say a couple of times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe. Don’t do it is not gonna get it done. So, I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government, encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.”
 
This is the most horrifying thing I’ve ever heard from a Supreme Court Justice.
 
Ketanji Brown-Jackson is concerned that the First Amendment is making it harder for the government to censor speech.
 
That’s literally the entire point.pic.twitter.com/oqBwVZQB0l
 
In one of the most blistering exchanges in today’s oral arguments, US Justice Samuel Alito appeared to be admonishing the federal government for treating social media platforms like their subordinates.”
 
In his comments, Justice Alito referenced the “exchange between the White House and other federal officials and Facebook in particular, but also some of the other platforms.” He continued, “And I see that, uh, the White House and other federal officials are repeatedly saying that Facebook and the federal government should be partners—we are on the same team —officials are demanding answers—I want an answer—I want it right away! And when they’re unhappy, they curse them out!  There are regular meetings there—and the constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms—and they wanna have regular meetings, and they suggest rules that should be applied—and tell us everything that you do so we can help you, and we can look it over. And I thought, WOW!  I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media or representatives over there. If you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be? And I thought, you know, the only reason why this is taking place is because the federal government has got Section 230 and anti-trust in its pocket. And it’s to mix my metaphors— and it’s got these big clubs available to it. And so it’s treating these platforms like their subordinates. Would you do that to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press or any other big newspaper or wire service?” he asked US Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher, who was defending the censorship practices of the government and big tech, using the so-called “once in a lifetime pandemic” as an excuse.
 
It should concern everyone how hard the US government is fighting to take away our right to free speech, which is protected by our First Amendment.
 
Go to the videoclip below to hear the full 1 hr 45 minute US Supreme Court oral arguments:
 
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 2077 of 2252
In reply toRe: msg 2076
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Mar-31

Anti-Trump Bias is Ruining our Justice System!

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 2078 of 2252
In reply toRe: msg 2077
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Mar-31

Former Trump Defense Sec Says Liz Cheney, J6 Committee Threatened to ‘Make My Life Hell’ If He Contradicted Their Preferred Narrative

By Ben Kew
Mar. 23, 2024 10:40 am

Donald Trump’s former acting Secretary of Defense, Chris Miller, has revealed that he felt “threatened” by former Congresswoman Liz Cheney and other members of the January 6th Committee after he refused to endorse their version of events.
 
In an interview with Daily Mail, Miller said that he became “fearful” of the panel’s tactics after they tried to stop him making claims that ran contrary to their preferred narrative.
 
According to Miller, the panel were particularly upset by a Fox News interview he gave with Trump national security official Kash Patel in which he pointed out that the former president authorized the National Guard to step in quell the protests taking place in and around the Capitol.
 
“The two of us were on [the Fox News show] and the next day my lawyer got a call from the Jan. 6 staff director – I forgot exactly who it was – but basically saying, very legalistic: ‘Well, if your client has additional information he wants to share, we’d be happy to have him re-interviewed,'” Miller explained.
 
“It was more that latent threat of: ‘If you want to keep going on TV, we’re gonna drag you in here again for additional hours of hearing testimony.’ So that was the nature of that whole thing,'” he continued.
 
He also outlined his view that the Committee’s Vice Chair Liz Cheney was the person “running the show” and that she was concerned about the “optics” of his claims that Trump attempted to restore order.
 
Miller, who was appointed as acting Secretary of Defense in October after his precedessor refused to act on evidence of widespread election fraud, added that he had not wanted to publicly discuss his concerns until now.
 
“I didn’t talk about it with anybody else because of the fear or the concern,” he said. “I wasn’t communicating with anybody, because I knew any interactions I had on it would result in me having to… acknowledge that I’d been in communications with other people. And then that just sort of opens up a whole can of worms with the investigators that I just didn’t want to do.’
 
“It was much easier just to not be involved with anybody or talk to anybody about this stuff because it was going to cause conflict and difficulties with the investigating team,” he continued. “So I didn’t talk to other people, quite simply.”
 
It is far from the first time that the J6 Committee has proven to be a witchhunt against Donald Trump. In January, an explosive report from Fox News revealed how the panel had secretly deleted over 100 potentially critical pieces of evidence right before the GOP took over the House of Representatives in 2022.

Former Trump Defense Sec Says Liz Cheney, J6 Committee Threatened to 'Make My Life Hell' If He Contradicted Their Preferred Narrative | The Gateway Pundit | by Ben Kew

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 2079 of 2252 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 1985
Breaktrack (breaktrack1)

From: Breaktrack (breaktrack1)

Mar-31

Prediction: people will get friends and family to say and post things that would trigger these "investigations" and then report them their selves. A cottage industry will develop, and people will make bank through this system. 

Prove me wrong.....

Mac

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 2080 of 2252 to Breaktrack (breaktrack1)breaktrack1 
In reply toRe: msg 2079
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Mar-31

That is entirely possible in these days and times.

Right now, the only almost unthinkable thing is... can or will we ever return to anything similar to the way we used to live.

Some say we've gone over the tipping point while others say we're on the verge of hitting the tipping point. And then you have the loonies who think everything is just fine and dandy!!!

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 2081 of 2252 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 2070
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Mar-31

. All it takes is for Trump to be convicted on a single count in a single case for Democrats and their allies to make a million campaign ads branding President Joe Biden’s challenger a “convicted felon.” Polls have shown that some voters who might otherwise support Trump will back away if he is convicted of a felony. That alone might be enough to swing the election. So of course the Democratic lawfare team, and its cheerleaders in the media, is desperate that at least one Trump trial start and reach a verdict before the Nov. 5 election

This is what I have been saying all along.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 2082 of 2252 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 2071
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Mar-31

They are actually admitting at the NYT that the election was stolen?

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 2083 of 2252 to Breaktrack (breaktrack1)breaktrack1 
In reply toRe: msg 2079
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Mar-31

Ironically the left used to be major proponents of the 1st amendment and free speech.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 2084 of 2252 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 2081
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Mar-31

Showtalk said...

Polls have shown that some voters who might otherwise support Trump will back away if he is convicted of a felony. That alone might be enough to swing the election.

As everybody is starting to see the ludicrousness of all the cases against Trump and how flimsy each and every one of them are, not to mention the lack of due process, not allowing Trump to bring in witnesses to defend him, not allowing Trump's lawyer to have a say in court, etc. are all illegal and would not be allowed in a fair court of law. 

People see through all of this and thus, even if convicted of just one felon, there is nothing in the Constitution that states that a felon cannot run for POTUS. A felon may not hold certain other positions in government, but there is nothing that prevents one from running for POTUS.

Thus, even if he's convicted, he'll appeal and that appeal won't be completed before the elections. Thus the felon conviction has a good chance of being overturned. Therefore, I believe a lot more people will vote for him even if falsely accused of being a felon.

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 2085 of 2252 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 2082
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Mar-31

Showtalk said...

They are actually admitting at the NYT that the election was stolen?

That's what it says. And with all the information that has come out about the 2020 election since then (just go back and read the over 2000 posts above), it's impossible for anybody to lie with a straight face and say the 2020 was fair with all the illegal activity discovered since the 2020 election.

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Keep Reading
TOP