The Next President is...

[kaputt]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Since the 2004 election, with the discontent brewing before that, a very large swath of the GOP, and, I imagine some centrist Democrats/Independents, have been unhappy with the sudden and ever-increasing growth in the size and scope of the federal government.

The 2010 Tea Party movement was a direct result of that.  The GOP did it's best to ignore/patronize/hijack the movement because it represented a threat to the good deal enjoyed by the Establishment class.  Those "ugly" townhalls upset their merlot glasses.

So what did the GOP do?  It ran Democrat-lites like McCain in 2008 and Mr. Great Hair but can't fight Romney in 2012.  Meanwhile, government growth and overreach marched on.

Come 2016 and the slate was overly full of the same Establishment candidates.  Trump, as a disruptor, beat 16 of those types of candidates.  And the GOP did it's best to tamp him and his voters down.  Obamacare still exists due to McCain, Murkowski, et al.  Despite the very real and clear signals that the peasants were revolting.  They ran during that election on specifically repealing Obamacare and when it came time, they supported it to stick it to Trump.  Some profiles in courage fellas...  With numerous other similar items unpassed or unrepealed because it would've been a win for Trump.

Came 2020 and some unprecedented events and Trump still scored more votes than any other GOP candidate ever.  I will leave off the voting shenanigans for another time.  I

So I'm not a fan of Trump the man, but of the idea he represents - mainly, a very large percentage of Americans are aghast at the size of the federal government, at the unbelievable overreach that is being tolerated and encouraged, and at the intentional fraying of the American societal fabric by that same Establishment group - is something that people want to rally around.

Me?  I want Trump to run again.  To disrupt the same ol' GOP that they'll try to run again and get the serfs back on the turnip fields.  And to absolutely piss people off to see that they aren't always the ones running the show for us peons.  This inconvenient truth was demonstrated once and the amount of caterwailing and pushback by both parties was incredible.   I look forward to it again.

Or burn it all down.

Barring Trump, then DeSantis.

I agree with most of this, including the very deep rooted issues in the GOP.

However, this country is in desperate need of real leadership. Trump is no leader. As you highlighted, he is a fabulous disruptor, but I don't think he is ultimately what this country needs to actually turn the ship around. There has to be a conservative voice out there that can highlight all the BS that Trump called out, but also find a way to bring the American people together (or at least most of them) and then articulate a vision and future for the country. The tweets, brash personality, etc... can be entertaining, especially the times when he was right. But in the end it is tiring, grading, and at the very least, not professional.

I voted for Trump twice as well, somewhat begrudgingly the second time, although he ultimately was the best candidate that was on the ballot. But, I will be voting in a primary for the first time in my life this next cycle in order to vote against him (if he runs). His personality is not what this country needs or what will actually set this country back on the right path again. I know we can do better than that as a country, and I would hope Republicans can do better than that as a party. Maybe someone like DeSantis, Crenshaw, Noem, or Haley can be the leader this country needs; time will tell.

 

[brickhistory]

!Haley! is another !Jeb! creature of the establishment.

Noem is a maybe.

Crenshaw doesn't have the large-scale leadership experience.

DeSantis would be my pick if not for Trump.

 

But I'm past the wanting to bring it together.  I, and millions of others have been repeatedly and for a very long period of time, rejected.  I will reject them right back.  Happy to see it burn if needed.

It's like those racist, misogynistic, privileged Founding Fathers were on to something including the rewatering of the Tree of Liberty at times.  

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, Negatory said:

If you can’t address the content of the argument, you’re not really contributing.

Well you have a habit of skipping the comments that do, so your contributions aren't particularly compelling either.

[Seadogs]

Hard pass on Noem, Haley, and Crenshaw. 

 

DeSantis w/ Trump as VP or vice versa is probably the ticket for 2024. 

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

!Haley! is another !Jeb! creature of the establishment.

Noem is a maybe.

Crenshaw doesn't have the large-scale leadership experience.

DeSantis would be my pick if not for Trump.

 

But I'm past the wanting to bring it together.  I, and millions of others have been repeatedly and for a very long period of time, rejected.  I will reject them right back.  Happy to see it burn if needed.

It's like those racist, misogynistic, privileged Founding Fathers were on to something including the rewatering of the Tree of Liberty at times.  

Crenshaw is the only one listed who is able to, and regularly does articulate the underlying principals behind his ideology.

 

His podcast is excellent, and he has a terrific personality/sense of humor. He's a war hero, and he has a "gimmick" that will grab the attention of the reality-TV voters (eye patch). I'd like to see him run with Tim Scott, or someone similarly aggressive in their conservatism while bringing some not-just-another-white-guy diversity into it.

 

It would be pretty badass of we elected a SEAL as president. 

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, hockeydork said:

Agreed dude, capitalism is the best we've got, no system is ever going to work perfectly, and not everybody gets to come in first, that's life. But look at you're argument "people would just move and find a new job". How many rust belt cities/coal towns keep voting people into office who "promise" to "bring our manufacturing and coal mining jobs back".  Why don't they just move to CA and work for Tesla, or NY and build wind turbines in Albany, or service solar panels in Nevada? Is it people don't want to leave, home is home?  Not a jab btw, but it seems a lot of times people don't want to move. 

A lot of people want a lot of things. They get the rewards of their decisions. But their lives are still leagues ahead of the rest of the world, so while they aren't getting the very specific American Dream they desire, they are benefiting none the less.

 

I have many relatives who refuse to move away from CA. They spend a lot of time complaining about how expensive it is, and the limited job opportunities. But when I tell them to leave... No way.

 

Tough shit. They will flounder while millions of others move. 

[tac airlifter]

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

It would be pretty badass of we elected a SEAL as president. 

Just imagine how many books they would write if they had a damn president.  And the first half of every state of the union will be about how hard BUDS was.  

[jazzdude]

You are making a hypothetical without a basis in reality. Or to be more specific, you're leaving out some pretty big parts.
 
In that scenario, Steel Mill A would end up with renewed competition if they raised the prices too much. For labor, lowering the wages simply pushes employees to work at other jobs (doesn't have to be another steel mill), which would crush Steel Mill A. "There are no other jobs" is a made-up condition. Where is there a single-company town? And if there is, why not move? You can see plenty of industries where exactly that happened.

If a company gets big enough, they can kill competition in their infancy. Either buy them out, undercut pricing to drive them out of business, or create barriers to entry into the industry. It's why monopolies are so dangerous. But get big enough, and you can lobby Congress or other oversight agencies to carve out exception for you (look at how successful Disney has been at doing this)

People in general seen to be hesitant to change industries. Throw in either high requirements for entry level jobs (why do so many jobs require a college degree?) or low pay during apprenticeship, and it can make the jump difficult. Especially if you're good at what you already do, and even though you took pay cuts, the pay is still enough scrape by.

Moving is also not without risks. It can be expensive to move (even if you get rid of most of your stuff, a small uhaul is still going to run you several hundred dollars if you're moving any real distance). You lose the support network you've grown up with: family, friends, acquaintances, and may not have any support network where you land to make a new start. There may also be cultural changes that you need to adjust to (rural vs city, regional norms/cultures).

Look at how hard Congress fights against BRAC, especially if a base in their district is on the chopping block. If a base closes (say like in Enid or Altus), there may not be enough jobs in the town to support the former on-base workers, even if they are willing to switch industries. In addition, other businesses get affected by the outflow of people (restaurants, retail, hotels, etc), which could cause then to also cut workers as they adjust to new levels of demand. All that leading to fewer people in the congressional district (decreased influence) and/or a shrunken economy.

Even if a town isn't run by a single company, a large company (or a military base) in a small town has a big impact on the town's economy. There may not be enough jobs for a large number of people to leave the large company without also needing to leave the town to find work. Or there may not be enough jobs if the large company closes or moves elsewhere.

I do think you're argument holds water in a larger city with multiple industries, at least for individual workers.

I prefer to shop at mom and pop stores now that I have the income to do so without hurting my financial goals. I'm not alone. Amazon has been around for less than a single generation, and it will take time for the changes to stabilize. But the arguments made are not new, and our system persists despite the many predictions of dystopian collapse.

Should shopping at mom and pop stores be considered a luxury?

[Sua Sponte]

14 hours ago, brickhistory said:

I will leave off the voting shenanigans for another time.

Looks like it’s going well for his voting fraud legal team.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-kraken-lawsuits-julia-haller-b1882776.html

[Lord Ratner]

13 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

If a company gets big enough, they can kill competition in their infancy. Either buy them out, undercut pricing to drive them out of business, or create barriers to entry into the industry. It's why monopolies are so dangerous. But get big enough, and you can lobby Congress or other oversight agencies to carve out exception for you (look at how successful Disney has been at doing this)

People in general seen to be hesitant to change industries. Throw in either high requirements for entry level jobs (why do so many jobs require a college degree?) or low pay during apprenticeship, and it can make the jump difficult. Especially if you're good at what you already do, and even though you took pay cuts, the pay is still enough scrape by.

Moving is also not without risks. It can be expensive to move (even if you get rid of most of your stuff, a small uhaul is still going to run you several hundred dollars if you're moving any real distance). You lose the support network you've grown up with: family, friends, acquaintances, and may not have any support network where you land to make a new start. There may also be cultural changes that you need to adjust to (rural vs city, regional norms/cultures).

Look at how hard Congress fights against BRAC, especially if a base in their district is on the chopping block. If a base closes (say like in Enid or Altus), there may not be enough jobs in the town to support the former on-base workers, even if they are willing to switch industries. In addition, other businesses get affected by the outflow of people (restaurants, retail, hotels, etc), which could cause then to also cut workers as they adjust to new levels of demand. All that leading to fewer people in the congressional district (decreased influence) and/or a shrunken economy.

Even if a town isn't run by a single company, a large company (or a military base) in a small town has a big impact on the town's economy. There may not be enough jobs for a large number of people to leave the large company without also needing to leave the town to find work. Or there may not be enough jobs if the large company closes or moves elsewhere.

I do think you're argument holds water in a larger city with multiple industries, at least for individual workers.



Should shopping at mom and pop stores be considered a luxury?

 

That's all well and good, but I don't see any of it as a flaw. It's a necessary ingredient to change, and change is the basis for our continued growth and development. A lot of countries in Europe spend huge sums "protecting" people from the challenges you list, and they barely make a difference, other than to saddle the country with a ton of additional debt. There's a whole lot of people moving to non-coastal cities like Nashville and DFW, all which have their small-town suburbs surrounding them. You can read the currents and profit or fight them and drown, but we aren't an agrarian society so having 5 generations live in the same town isn't a viable option anymore.

 

The monopoly stuff is all true, and it's why we have laws for it. But as you noted, the bigger problem is corporatism. As an example, Amazon gets tax cuts for opening new warehouses. Insanity. We need a constitutional ban on selective taxation that extends all the way to the local level. The greatest threat to a capitalist system is unfairness (of opportunity, not outcome).

 

And no, it shouldn't be a luxury, and it's not. Buying the literal maximum amount of "stuff" with a given income is not a human right. Americans are some of the richest people in the world, and even the lower two quintiles can make choices. In most cases it's not a matter of "can they" but a matter of "do they care?" Just like littering, air pollution, organic produce, bike lanes, and fair-trade coffee, buying from mom and pop stores is a concern of the wealthy.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[lloyd christmas]

21 hours ago, kaputt said:

There has to be a conservative voice out there that can highlight all the BS that Trump called out, but also find a way to bring the American people together (or at least most of them) and then articulate a vision and future for the country. The tweets, brash personality, etc... can be entertaining, especially the times when he was right. But in the end it is tiring, grading, and at the very least, not professional.

This is exactly what I would like to see.  A conservative that can highlight all the BS going on, bring us together and articulate a vision for the future but do it in a professional, mature and presidential manner.  

The unfortunate reality is, the only type person that can highlight the BS, fight back and fight hard against the system, deep state, media, big tech, etc is a disruptor.  That type of person would have all the character flaws that Trump has. It’s how a billionaire real estate tycoon from NYC who is a ego maniac got elected.  He was the only one willing to walk into the room slinging elbows and throwing punches.  It was hard to watch at times but again, that’s the only personality type that has the balls to do it.  Anyone and everyone else just gets run over.  

Nobody had ever looked at Hillary Clinton and said “you’d be in jail” on national tv.  She’d never been talked to like that in her entire life.  Some squeaky clean conservative damn sure would never have done it.  

[bfargin]

If Trump had only listened to the IP and learned to STFU he would still be POTUS. He is his own worst enemy, not for standing up to the political elite and calling them out, but for the indiscriminate shit flinging at any and everyone (even when clueless about his target). He is a classical liberal, but I'd take a liberal any day over the lunacy of the new left.

 

 

.

[Negatory]

On 7/13/2021 at 4:32 PM, hockeydork said:

Do they tho? How many middle classers chose to be cheapos? Example, and this is a true story and if I am lying may the fighter gods banish me from having any shot at a pointy. During the 2016 run-up, I had two coworkers, adamant Trump supporters, Bernie and Hillary are socialists, going to destroy the country blah blah. That's FINE. BOTH of them needed tires for their cars, I was like "buy these Coopers they're made in the USA I got them for my car at a fair price". What do they BOTH do? "Give me the cheapest Shengzin whatever tire from Sears". Where were they made? China. Some people do it to themselves. Some people really don't have a choice and are barely scraping by, and yes those people I empathize for and the system needs to do better for them, but a lot of people do it to themselves. I don't care who you are, Walmart greeter, submarine engineer or a baseops F-35 super hero. If you complain we don't make anything here and manufacturing is in the gutter but than actively select to purchase the cheapest foreign stuff when there exists a domestically produced alternative? F*ck you. Rant off. 

This illustrates my point even more. If middle class people won’t do it, why would people who actually have no money?

In my experience, unless you’re getting significantly better quality for the higher cost, people dgaf where things are produced. They’ll bitch and moan about China, but it is definitely not in the vast majority of American’s minds or capabilities to actually give a damn.

[kaputt]

White House admits to flagging and then working with big tech to eliminate so called “disinformation”. This should be terrifying to everyone.  

[brickhistory]

- Justice Dept admitting it covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story which includes them actively investigating him for tax evasion (say, while you're at it, you might want to check on him for lying when purchasing a handgun..) because they "didn't want to seem political during an election."

- WH Press Secretary admitting this Administration has been working with various Big Social Media companies to have voices silenced "because they are spreading 'disinformation.'"  Say, who decides that anyway?  I'd like to be part of the 'in crowd' deciding what the plebes can say or see...

- Fulton County had at least 4,400+ illegal votes during the 2020 election.  In a state that Trump lost by 12,000-ish votes.  So one county had 1/3 of the difference and the only one that had an audit.  And this coming from reporting by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, about as liberal a paper as there is.

- Maricopa County audit looks like 74,000 mail-in ballots received than were sent out officially.  Nothing see there, yet Congress wants to investigate the investigators.

- The DOJ IG hammers the FBI for missing/covering up for years info on the now imprisoned Olympic Committee doctor who abused young girl athletes.  Sure does seem like the FBI's been "missing" a bunch of stuff in the last years - San Bernadino shooter, the Lakeland shooter, the Pulse Night Club shooter, etc, etc.

- Groceries and gas seem to be a tad bit more expensive nowadays as well.

 

But twitter has been remarkably upbeat and nice so that's a fair trade.

 

[Sua Sponte]

24 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

- Justice Dept admitting it covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story which includes them actively investigating him for tax evasion (say, while you're at it, you might want to check on him for lying when purchasing a handgun..) because they "didn't want to seem political during an election."

- WH Press Secretary admitting this Administration has been working with various Big Social Media companies to have voices silenced "because they are spreading 'disinformation.'"  Say, who decides that anyway?  I'd like to be part of the 'in crowd' deciding what the plebes can say or see...

- Fulton County had at least 4,400+ illegal votes during the 2020 election.  In a state that Trump lost by 12,000-ish votes.  So one county had 1/3 of the difference and the only one that had an audit.  And this coming from reporting by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, about as liberal a paper as there is.

- Maricopa County audit looks like 74,000 mail-in ballots received than were sent out officially.  Nothing see there, yet Congress wants to investigate the investigators.

- The DOJ IG hammers the FBI for missing/covering up for years info on the now imprisoned Olympic Committee doctor who abused young girl athletes.  Sure does seem like the FBI's been "missing" a bunch of stuff in the last years - San Bernadino shooter, the Lakeland shooter, the Pulse Night Club shooter, etc, etc.

- Groceries and gas seem to be a tad bit more expensive nowadays as well.

 

But twitter has been remarkably upbeat and nice so that's a fair trade.

 

1. Wasn’t the “laptop story” coming from someone who was recently had their law license suspended in two separate jurisdictions? Hmmm.

2. Who gets to decide what’s said their platform? The owner of said platform. Don’t like it? You’re free to make your own.
 

3. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/15/georgias-raffensperger-calls-firing-fulton-election-officials/7983338002/

“Three separate audits of Georgia's 2020 election results found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.”

4. https://apnews.com/article/f0c36df59ee1069d65aa6a70a22d88cc
 

“CLAIM: Arizona’s largest county in the 2020 election received and counted 74,000 mail-in ballots that had no record of ever being sent out to voters.

THE FACTS: False. The claim mischaracterizes reports that are intended to help political parties track early voters for their get-out-the-vote efforts, not tally mail-in ballots through Election Day. The reports don’t represent all mail-in ballots sent out and received, so the numbers aren’t expected to match up, according to Maricopa County officials and outside experts. 

“We have 74,243 mail-in ballots where there is no clear record of them being sent,” Logan said at a meeting livestreamed at Arizona’s Capitol on Thursday. “That could be something where documentation wasn’t done right. There’s a clerical issue. There’s not proper things there, but I think when we’ve got 74,000, it merits knocking on a door and validating some of this information.”

Logan based his false claim on two types of early voting reports issued by Maricopa County: EV32 files and EV33 files. He claimed that EV32 files are “supposed to give a record of when a mail-in ballot is sent” and EV33 files are “supposed to give a record of when the mail-in ballot is received.”

That’s not accurate, according to Maricopa County officials, who tweeted on Friday that “the EV32 Returns & EV33 files are not the proper files to refer to for a complete accumulating of all early ballots sent and received.”

Instead, the EV32 and EV33 files are reports created for political parties to aid them in their get-out-the-vote efforts during early voting, according to Tammy Patrick, a senior adviser at the Democracy Fund and a former Maricopa County elections official. Arizona law requires county recorders to provide this data to political parties and candidates, Patrick said.”

6. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/04/gasoline-prices-gop-biden-497947
 

“It’s an old tactic employed by opposition parties to blame sitting presidents when fuel prices rise on their watch — and one that Republicans unsuccessfully tried to wield against Barack Obama during a recovering economy a decade ago. This time, they are pointing to Biden's ambitious climate change plans, his pause on leases for new oil wells on federal lands, and his cancellation of the permits for the Keystone XL pipeline as the culprits, although none of those steps have had any immediate impact on what motorists pay at the pump.

Experts largely agree that the White House usually has little to do with short-term moves in gasoline prices, which are a factor of global oil prices, U.S. refinery operations, and — especially this year — a sharp jump in demand from drivers as people emerge from lockdowns and travel resumes.“

 

[kaputt]

33 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

 

2. Who gets to decide what’s said their platform? The owner of said platform. Don’t like it? You’re free to make your own.
 

 

 

 

Did you miss the part where the Government is working with private companies to silence voices? Or is government censorship something you’re cool with? 

[Sua Sponte]

57 minutes ago, kaputt said:

Did you miss the part where the Government is working with private companies to silence voices? Or is government censorship something you’re cool with? 

By silence you mean telling social media platforms to cutdown on misinformation? It’s not a First Amendment violation since it’s up to the social media platforms to either delete it or not, the government isn’t disposing directly. Suggest you chicken littles focus on the 2024 election.

If social media platforms are unfairly targeting conservatives saying they’re the root cause of misinformation, then why are Ted Cruz, Ben Shapiro, Lauren Boebert, and that CrossFit Nazi from Georgia’s accounts not deleted?

[kaputt]

16 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

By silence you mean telling social media platforms to cutdown on misinformation? It’s not a First Amendment violation since it’s up to the social media platforms to either delete it or not, the government isn’t disposing directly. Suggest you chicken littles focus on the 2024 election.

If social media platforms are unfairly targeting conservatives saying they’re the root cause of misinformation, then why are Ted Cruz, Ben Shapiro, Lauren Boebert, and that CrossFit Nazi from Georgia’s accounts not deleted?

I don’t even know what to say man. Presumably you’re a US Citizen and a military officer, and you are okay with the government of this country having a role in censorship. That’s shocking.  
 

I don’t care if they are flagging the most asinine and uneducated COVID conspiracy posts ever, the government has no business deciding what can or cannot be said. 

[Sua Sponte]

16 minutes ago, kaputt said:

I don’t even know what to say man. Presumably you’re a US Citizen and a military officer, and you are okay with the government of this country having a role in censorship. That’s shocking.  
 

I don’t care if they are flagging the most asinine and uneducated COVID conspiracy posts ever, the government has no business deciding what can or cannot be said. 

The government isn’t deciding, the owners of the social media platforms are. Also, the First Amendment does not protect against knowingly false statement of fact. If that was the case, then explain why the Kraken Legal Team facing possible sanctions up to disbarment for their inherently bad faith voter fraud lawsuits.  

Edited July 17, 2021 by Sua Sponte

[SurelySerious]

The government isn’t deciding, the owners of the social media platforms are. Also, the First Amendment does not protect against knowingly false statement of fact. If that was the case, then explain why the Kraken Legal Team facing possible sanctions up to disbarment for their inherently bad faith voter fraud lawsuits.  

“Hey private company, censor this speech for us.”

Sounds like the government is indeed 1000% restricting free speech.

[SurelySerious]

“Hey private company, censor this speech for us.”

Sounds like the government is indeed 1000% restricting free speech.

You know how much we roast other countries for doing the same thing, right?

[ViperMan]

53 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

It’s not a First Amendment violation since it’s up to the social media platforms to either delete it or not, the government isn’t disposing directly.

 

16 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

The government isn’t deciding, the owners of the social media platforms are.

It's a pretty shallow analysis to say that because Facebook (et al) are private companies, when they censor speech, it's not the government doing it. In fact, however, there is established legal precedent which (time and again) has determined that when government pressures or otherwise incentivises a company to act on their behalf, that action has become a de facto governmental action.

The reason for this is simple. If it was just as simple as saying "hey private company, restrict this speech we don't like so it's not us doing it and we'll hook you up in some way," would free speech really mean what we all think of it as? Of course not, which is why there have been numerous court cases which have decided that the government cannot use private companies as a proxy to accomplish what they are otherwise forbidden from doing. Which, in this case, is restricting speech.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105

For example:

"For more than half a century courts have held that governmental threats can turn private conduct into state action. In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Supreme Court found a First Amendment violation when a private bookseller stopped selling works state officials deemed “objectionable” after they sent him a veiled threat of prosecution."

[Sua Sponte]

13 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

“Hey private company, censor this speech for us.”

Sounds like the government is indeed 1000% restricting free speech.

Yeah, cause tech companies give a fuck what the Feds want all the time. It’s also not censoring when you’re free to go to another platform and say whatever you want. You know, for the six minutes you guys were on Parler and learned that the tech giants also own all the major cloud hosting services.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/fbi-and-apple-are-poised-for-another-privacy-disagreement.html

[Sua Sponte]

3 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

 

It's a pretty shallow analysis to say that because Facebook (et al) are private companies, when they censor speech, it's not the government doing it. In fact, however, there is established legal precedent which (time and again) has determined that when government pressures or otherwise incentivises a company to act on their behalf, that action has become a de facto governmental action.

The reason for this is simple. If it was just as simple as saying "hey private company, restrict this speech we don't like so it's not us doing it and we'll hook you up in some way," would free speech really mean what we all think of it as? Of course not, which is why there have been numerous court cases which have decided that the government cannot use private companies as a proxy to accomplish what they are otherwise forbidden from doing. Which, in this case, is restricting speech.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105

For example:

"For more than half a century courts have held that governmental threats can turn private conduct into state action. In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Supreme Court found a First Amendment violation when a private bookseller stopped selling works state officials deemed “objectionable” after they sent him a veiled threat of prosecution."

Where did the government say they were going to levy legal action against the tech giants if they didn’t “censor” free speech?