The Next President is...

[AirGuardianC141747]

Very Great points jazzdude:

Regarding the subset of voters I mentioned you are correct, maybe we trust a proven system whatever that might be which I guess I only alluded too.

America as a whole has voted for a very long time centuries now without such mail in ballots as a predominant measure, it has just been a rushed measure with this current state of affairs.

Standing in long lines losing pay with skin in the game, bad bosses and not getting paid for your time being American that’s nothing new if you have been voting for quite awhile now as your civic duty. I can only account for over 3 decades of voting and how it has changed significantly for the worse with the technology available for the best. With your voter accountability ideas it should be attainable. Side note - $15 an hour pay might help so many have that going for them which is nice. Not arguing whether $15 is a good/bad thing, we as the consumer will pay no matter what as it will be handed down to us. 
 

Closing the economy for voting, even if true for a few weeks it’s hardly a real deal breaker compared to 2020 as the litmus test. The American economy is still being crushed into this year with constant closings aside from the protesting/riots/1st Amendment tamp down, etc. Businesses have already burned and continue to struggle with folks hurting out there as we live among the non-government paycheck entrepreneurs, small businesses, etc. As a nation we have yet to feel and reel from the impacts going forward to include the debt accrued into $30 Trillion plus now.

Your Voter ID definitely has great merit and I hope to get there beyond signatures, voter registration, ID etc. (never said just signature match, I would have included heartbeat if it mattered 🙂 Your 2 factor authentication would be the best course of action. My statement was a pure assessment that we basically have absolutely nothing so how will trust be earned again. Your way sounds good.

Time to research at home definitely is more of a comfort driven statement, I like it. Being informed is paramount. I already do the same it’s just homework, but I have drilled down my notes in hand when I actually show up to vote as we do not have the premiere system that you mentioned yet. When we do, I’m there dude/just like you = good stuff.

Regarding Trump and current events. At least at the bare minimum we get to see all the snakes that normally reside in the tall grass. A lot of them are out in the open and blatantly revealed themselves and their agendas within BOTH parties, Presidents current/past, Senators, Governors, Mayors, Police Chiefs, etc. Definitely an easier and safer life to blindly walk the path down the middle of the tall grass. Easier for them to strike from their comfort zone, but now the grass has been lit on fire.

Free Speech / Gun Control at the forefront. It’s not coming it’s already here with the 1st Amendment being crossed rampantly and trigger control a close 2nd. Crush 1, then number 2 and so on. Parler, YouTube restrictions , Go Daddy now, granted plenty of other websites have been attacked/shutdown/restricted by the DOJ for the good of society, but these Free Speech sites seem to be at the forefront currently (not by DOJ, but Big Tech). Anyone can be on the list now. Search parties are rolling and not to save a life mind you, but to control it.

 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by AirGuardianC141747

[AirGuardianC141747]

Gun Control is very tricky. Definitely could institute some sort of common sense measures whatever they may be. No expert by any means although many initiatives are a gateway drug to further action. But in the end if you believe there is absolutely no threat of gun confiscation, history has proven you wrong. To paraphrase Lloyd Christmas, I am telling you there’s a chance. However miNute, it’s the same reason you have a CCL.
 

Buyback is gun confiscation, or you could just mandatory register your items making it easier to go door to door, granted plenty of states/counties becoming sanctuary areas as each second passes. Nothing was accomplished rapidly prior to the Trump administration. It’s the whole boiling frog routine. Now things are moving quickly and once you start chipping away like a boxer’s first eye cut, the bleeding won’t stop and it always gets worse from there.

Venezuela at least offered some great appliances before tyranny set in.

2020 has proven you should have the right to protect yourself all by itself. Imagine how much greater the threat might have been if there was absolutely no fear entering certain areas.

Virginias flag alone tells you why the 2nd amendment exists. Goddess of virtue with a sword/Lance and stepping on the chest King of England mind you, his crown having fallen to the wayside.  "Sic semper tyrannis“ written below...

[jazzdude]

I didn't say remove guns.  
Also, I hate how this lame argument about guns only making it easier to hurt people...  Yeah, a lot easier!  Why don't you go pull up statistics on mass shootings vs mass stabbings or cars used as a weapon.  The latter happen infrequently because you can't do the same amount of damage without getting up close and personal. Difference between pickling a JDAM and pulling the trigger in CQB is similar. One is much harder to do, and that's in a justified situation.  The ability to be somewhat removed by using a gun vs having to do it up close and personal is just one aspect limiting people trying to stab everyone at school.  Lock guns up in your home, and that pissed off kid, wanting to commit violence has to really think a lot more about how he is gonna go about it.
We have a right to guns and ammo in whatever qty we feel we want.  I'm not ever going to back up anything that tries to change it.  This seems like a no-brainer to put a dent in (while it won't eliminate them) mass shootings, especially at schools.
One of the dumbest things gun rights advocates can say is, "guns don't hurt people, people do!" Problem with the right is acting like they're trying to take away our guns the second the conversation even comes up. Engage in the conversation in good faith, and we should be able to find a compromise because you're kidding yourself if you think nothing needs to be done...

I generally agree with you, and you have valid points regarding guns making violence easier. My intent was that getting rid of guns doesn't eliminate the underlying problem of violence in schools, which many anti-gun advocates claim.
https://everytownresearch.org/report/a-plan-for-preventing-mass-shootings-and-ending-all-gun-violence-in-american-schools/#intro
https://www.nea.org/student-success/smart-just-policies/gun-violence-prevention
That's what I'm trying to refute.

It's a two prong problem:
- Reduce access or means to commit violence (securing guns, limits for purchase, etc)
- Reduce/eliminate intent to commit violence (counseling, therapy, mental healthcare access)
The problem doesn't get solved without solving part parts of the problem.

Even if guns are locked up, a kid intent on planning and executing a school shooting is going to find a way, unless the parent has a "good" safe and doesn't have a weak combination (like birthdays, favorite numbers, etc).

The other issue is that any solutions applied to reduce school shootings will likely be applied to society at large (ref outrage about AR15s and assault weapons). It's already generally illegal to bring a gun to a school. So requiring guns to be locked up in a private residence has about as much effect on school shootings as banning guns from school property, unless the government is going to do spot inspections to verify gun owner compliance (which no gun owner wants, and sets a terrible precedent regarding privacy).

Also, what is considered sufficient for securing firearms? Is my locked front door sufficient (can I have a loaded firearm in my nightstand for personal defense if I don't have kids)? What about a locked desk drawer? Can I have a firearm (functional or not) in a display case? Or does it need to be in a dedicated gun safe at all times when I'm not actively handling or transporting the firearm? Does that gun safe need to be anchored to my residence (otherwise, a smaller, lighter, non anchored safe could just be stolen, and the safe or lock can be beat at a later time). What kind of lock is suitable (many store padlocks are relatively easy to beat)? How often does the combination need to be changed to prevent a troubled kid from learning the combination? If your kid has a friend who's deemed a high risk to commit a school shooting, does that give the government the right to temporarily impound your guns you keep in a safe to reduce that other troubled kid's access to guns to prevent a school shooting (as advocates by everytown and NEA)?

That bill is overly vague and broad.

[slackline]

1 minute ago, jazzdude said:

 

I generally agree with you, and you have valid points regarding guns making violence easier. My intent was that getting rid of guns doesn't eliminate the underlying problem of violence in schools, which many anti-gun advocates claim.
https://everytownresearch.org/report/a-plan-for-preventing-mass-shootings-and-ending-all-gun-violence-in-american-schools/#intro
https://www.nea.org/student-success/smart-just-policies/gun-violence-prevention
That's what I'm trying to refute.

It's a two prong problem:
- Reduce access or means to commit violence (securing guns, limits for purchase, etc)
- Reduce/eliminate intent to commit violence (counseling, therapy, mental healthcare access)
The problem doesn't get solved without solving part parts of the problem.

Even if guns are locked up, a kid intent on planning and executing a school shooting is going to find a way, unless the parent has a "good" safe and doesn't have a weak combination (like birthdays, favorite numbers, etc).

The other issue is that any solutions applied to reduce school shootings will likely be applied to society at large (ref outrage about AR15s and assault weapons). It's already generally illegal to bring a gun to a school. So requiring guns to be locked up in a private residence has about as much effect on school shootings as banning guns from school property, unless the government is going to do spot inspections to verify gun owner compliance (which no gun owner wants, and sets a terrible precedent regarding privacy).

Also, what is considered sufficient for securing firearms? Is my locked front door sufficient (can I have a loaded firearm in my nightstand for personal defense if I don't have kids)? What about a locked desk drawer? Can I have a firearm (functional or not) in a display case? Or does it need to be in a dedicated gun safe at all times when I'm not actively handling or transporting the firearm? Does that gun safe need to be anchored to my residence (otherwise, a smaller, lighter, non anchored safe could just be stolen, and the safe or lock can be beat at a later time). What kind of lock is suitable (many store padlocks are relatively easy to beat)? How often does the combination need to be changed to prevent a troubled kid from learning the combination? If your kid has a friend who's deemed a high risk to commit a school shooting, does that give the government the right to temporarily impound your guns you keep in a safe to reduce that other troubled kid's access to guns to prevent a school shooting (as advocates by everytown and NEA)?

That bill is overly vague and broad.

 

Great questions, and they go to my point about the conversation.  Refuse to have it, and we get what the ignorant masses force on us.  Take part in the conversation and maintain some say in what those measures/definitions are.  

[pbar]

2 hours ago, slackline said:

<Snip>  Engage in the conversation in good faith, and we should be able to find a compromise because you're kidding yourself if you think nothing needs to be done...

Therein lies the problem, the vast majority of politicians advocating gun control are not operating in good faith.  They are just moving the ball down the field towards their goal of eliminating the 2A.  

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/22/2021 at 12:49 PM, Lord Ratner said:

You'd have to listen to Shapiro's podcast to know that. He regularly and repeatedly calls out the right. He's the most honest and consistent voice on the right by far, and if you only listened to one conservative, it should be him.

 

Tucker Carlson is second on the list, but a distant second. Not because he represents the intellectual justification for conservatism, but because he is the best voice for the populist/conservative hybrid that is growing within the right. Unfortunately most of his work is on cable news, which is a garbage format. But he does appear on podcasts where his views are far more digestible. Check out him and Shapiro talking about self driving trucks. It's an eye opening exchange to a self-driving-car-evangelist like myself.

I have listened to a few of Shapiro's podcasts (working from home provides some flexibility).  Sorry, he sticks to right wing talking points 99% of the time.  The only "criticism" I've heard was from this summer, indicating that Trump occasionally gets in his own way with his communications style, but then it was right back to slamming the left. 

Clearly, Shapiro, like Weisteins and even Rogan to an extent, rarely, if ever, criticize the right. In fact, the main talking point is that it was really the democrats who sparked the Jan 6th riots because they were just too tough and mean to Trump.  That is completely ridiculous.  The fact is that a very large number of Trump supporters were duped and incited by his rhetoric, resulting in an attempt to interrupt the political process. Full stop.  

The right demands that the left see both sides, which the left in fact does way better than the right.  It is not even close. 

[17D_guy]

29 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I have listened to a few of Shapiro's podcasts (working from home provides some flexibility).  Sorry, he sticks to right wing talking points 99% of the time.  The only "criticism" I've heard was from this summer, indicating that Trump occasionally gets in his own way with his communications style, but then it was right back to slamming the left.

Shapiro was very hard on Trump's lies about the election from the start.  There's pretty good video where he's arguing with his crew about how they're wrong for supporting the former pres saying he won that night. He's done that all along, and pointed out how awful the lawsuits are.

Yes, 99% of the time he's going to have those talking points because those are his talking points.  But he's on the same line every time, and doesn't shift much when some darling conservative comes in and "does bad, to do good."  He annoys me often, but I respect him on that front.

Tucker Carlson on the other hand is none of those things. Has he released his copy of the Biden laptop yet that he got?  He fans the flames on rhetoric, with the same bad faith arguments and selective reading of the facts same as Hannity.  He's willing to align himself to whatever gets him views and popular, unlike Shapiro.  Him playing himself as "a man of the people" with his sliver spoon upbringing and Ivy League education is just the topper.

The fact that a court of law, and Fox News argued, that you can't take anything he says as a "statement of fact" means the show isn't worth anyone's time.

[ClearedHot]

17 hours ago, slackline said:

Why?  Because I don't agree with some of the points on the right, and I'm not willing to blindly jump on board with everything spouted by people on an internet forum?  I'm a moderate, leaning conservative.  

And like I said, very clear definitions need to exist. Engage in good faith in the debate, and we get a say in those definitions.  Act like they're trying to steal our guns, refuse to engage, and we're stuck with whatever they decide.  That's a bad strategy...

I think you missed the point.  If you read your reply it could be taken as you AGREE with the legislation and that is what I found shocking.   "1-3 I'll agree with 100%."  Putting a "you" after agree might have changed that sentence, but as written it sounds like you agree with all three bills.

For the record I think most Americans are in the middle and it is the ideologues on the extremes that are driving the narrative.  I too am a moderate, I am social liberal and fiscally conservative.

[slackline]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I think you missed the point.  If you read your reply it could be taken as you AGREE with the legislation and that is what I found shocking.   "1-3 I'll agree with 100%."  Putting a "you" after agree might have changed that sentence, but as written it sounds like you agree with all three bills.

For the record I think most Americans are in the middle and it is the ideologues on the extremes that are driving the narrative.  I too am a moderate, I am social liberal and fiscally conservative.

Nope, was agreeing with you on 1-3.  Context of me then explaining my thoughts on 4&5 makes it fairly obvious I wasn't agreeing with all three bills. I could have been more clear though. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by slackline

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, MyCS said:

So the MyPillow guy is banned from Twitter too now. Twitter is turning into Oprah...you get banned, you get banned, everyone gets banned. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/26/twitter-bans-mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-election-fraud-claims/4257458001/

 

 

The tech oligarchs are going to strangle opposing messages while basking in the protections of 230.

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

The tech oligarchs are going to strangle opposing messages while basking in the protections of 230.

What are some possible solutions?   At the end of the day I’d rather have companies make their own business decisions rather than the government.  

Edited January 26, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[ClearedHot]

14 minutes ago, MyCS said:

Just going to result in the death of some social media platforms. People will flock to platforms with less oversight.

It's the same way with texting platforms. If your messaging app isn't secure/encrypted, you're going to lose business. 

This won't kill any of the big social media platforms, by their own doing and dopamine fueled tactics they have become too far ingrained our daily lives.  I try to avoid thinking like the old fart that I am and look outside the container.  57% of Melienials get their news from Social Media platforms...these tech oligarchs have control on the information and put up huge barriers to entry for competitors.  The only thing that seems to break that model is when something become super trendy or "hot."  Tik Tok is a good example...also an example that is COMPLETELY compromised by the Chinese.

I don't want the government deciding what we can or can't see, what we can or can't post but something has to change.  I lean towards breaking the monopolies that are Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Amazon...yes I know it is a very slippery slope.  Regardless, fundamental changes have to be made to 230.

[ClearedHot]

Biden gonna get a little taste of what Trump got at every turn.  The longest lasting impact of the Trump administration will be felt for years in the courts which he successfully stacked with conservative judges.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-blocks-biden-deportations?fbclid=IwAR3H9PBwX01ZG8C6Owg9LS9FM07a2urEHvgJXhpYWChW1nqPGxp-beq3yzU

 

[Negatory]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Biden gonna get a little taste of what Trump got at every turn.  The longest lasting impact of the Trump administration will be felt for years in the courts which he successfully stacked with conservative judges.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-blocks-biden-deportations?fbclid=IwAR3H9PBwX01ZG8C6Owg9LS9FM07a2urEHvgJXhpYWChW1nqPGxp-beq3yzU

 

Don’t get em too scared or they’ll just pack the court and add 2 more judges

[Swamp Yankee]

57 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Don’t get em too scared or they’ll just pack the court and add 2 more judges

I agree with a number of Biden’s EOs but this one was a big mistake.  Deportations are a critical part of managing immigration. 

[Swamp Yankee]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

This won't kill any of the big social media platforms, by their own doing and dopamine fueled tactics they have become too far ingrained our daily lives.  I try to avoid thinking like the old fart that I am and look outside the container.  57% of Melienials get their news from Social Media platforms...these tech oligarchs have control on the information and put up huge barriers to entry for competitors.  The only thing that seems to break that model is when something become super trendy or "hot."  Tik Tok is a good example...also an example that is COMPLETELY compromised by the Chinese.

I don't want the government deciding what we can or can't see, what we can or can't post but something has to change.  I lean towards breaking the monopolies that are Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Amazon...yes I know it is a very slippery slope.  Regardless, fundamental changes have to be made to 230.

I agree with much of the above. However, I remain an eternal optimIst regarding innovation and disruption.  None of these platforms will exist forever. The digital landscape is littered with the corpses of former online and hardware giants: MySpace, Vine, Wii, Blackberry, to name a few. The distant past includes Netscape, AOL, even Digital Equip and Wang.  Trying to implement policies to control such things  is probably a fools errand. 

[Swamp Yankee]

5 hours ago, MyCS said:

Just going to result in the death of some social media platforms. People will flock to platforms with less oversight.

It's the same way with texting platforms. If your messaging app isn't secure/encrypted, you're going to lose business. 

That is exactly how creative capitalism works. 

[arg]

2 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I agree with a number of Biden’s EOs but this one was a big mistake.  Deportations are a critical part of managing immigration. 

Which ones of the 30(a world record I believe) and do you agree with?

[slackline]

25 minutes ago, arg said:

Which ones of the 30(a world record I believe) and do you agree with?

You wanna go that route. Trump holds the record. 

[arg]

5 minutes ago, slackline said:

You wanna go that route. Trump holds the record. 

Not even close. You not going to answer my question? The record I was referring to was the first few days.

Edited January 27, 2021 by arg

[Royal]

7 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

This won't kill any of the big social media platforms, by their own doing and dopamine fueled tactics they have become too far ingrained our daily lives.  I try to avoid thinking like the old fart that I am and look outside the container.  57% of Melienials get their news from Social Media platforms...these tech oligarchs have control on the information and put up huge barriers to entry for competitors.  The only thing that seems to break that model is when something become super trendy or "hot."  Tik Tok is a good example...also an example that is COMPLETELY compromised by the Chinese.

I don't want the government deciding what we can or can't see, what we can or can't post but something has to change.  I lean towards breaking the monopolies that are Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Amazon...yes I know it is a very slippery slope.  Regardless, fundamental changes have to be made to 230.

A couple good articles by a disproportionately smart guy that's in the sector:

https://davidsacks.medium.com/the-speech-cartel-b3f5555f7787

https://medium.com/craft-ventures/section-230-mend-it-dont-end-it-e33799a43a5f

Sacks argues that speech, particularly at scale, has been almost completely digitized. Thus, the first amendment takes precedence over all else.

Social media is effectively a utility at this point; imagine not being able to get power or water turned on at your house due to the way you voted. Running a business without social media is impossible in the year 2021.

Additionally, as CH pointed out, this cartel can't have their cake and eat it too with regard to 230. This very well could be the most important legal and Constitutional discussion of the 21st century.

[slackline]

21 minutes ago, arg said:

Not even close. You not going to answer my question? The record I was referring to was the first few days.

I wasn’t the original person you were calling out.  I was simply pointing out how absurd it was to complain about the “record amount” of EOs he’s signed one week into his term.  Let’s see if he holds pace, then it is significant, otherwise it’s simply one guy trying to undo all the crap he feels was done poorly by the guy who left things a mess.  Some I agree with, some are pandering to the left, and some are stupid, and will probably suck for the country.  

Since you’re so big on keeping track, how many last second things did Trump try to do on his way out, seemingly to simply create work for the next admin?

[arg]

2 minutes ago, slackline said:

I wasn’t the original person you were calling out.  I was simply pointing out how absurd it was to complain about the “record amount” of EOs he’s signed one week into his term.  Let’s see if he holds pace, then it is significant, otherwise it’s simply one guy trying to undo all the crap he feels was done poorly by the guy who left things a mess.  Some I agree with, some are pandering to the left, and some are stupid, and will probably suck for the country.  

Since you’re so big on keeping track, how many last second things did Trump try to do on his way out, seemingly to simply create work for the next admin?

Oops, my bad it was Swamp Yankee. But why are you saying I called him out by asking a question? Which ones do you agree with? Am i calling you out asking that? You said Trump holds the record. For what? Total EOs? EOs signed in the first week of office? I am 100% with you on your last sentence in the first paragraph.

[Pooter]

4 hours ago, MyCS said:

Millennials have the attention span of a grape nut. It was Twitter...then Instagram..now Tik Tok.

Tik Tok gives you a 1 minute video of information. It doesn't have to be true. Everyone is an expert on Tik Tok too. I'm like why are you guys liking the video of a dog trainer telling you why you shouldn't spayed or neuter your pet by a certain age. She isn't a veterinarian. But that's this generation.

Yeah totally different from the last generation who confused the generation before theirs with newfangled social media nonsense too.. definitely way different...

[ClearedHot]

9 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

That is exactly how creative capitalism works. 

Capitalism assumes a free market.  Right now, especially with 230, we have anything but a free market.