Elections Democrat Party dirty tricks exposed

[SKYNET]

We should try to be reality focused on not give attention to Taibbi

This is it @Witchhunt, might as well delete the thread

 

[Deleted member 577981]

However, if a rich person buys it, they are not paying the costs passed onto them?

Hey man, we've had goodwill on this thread so what these guys are saying is basically correct. It does apply to everybody. The tariff tax applies to everybody but obviously it hurts some working people and poor people way more because everybody has to buy tires.everybody has to buy brakes. Everybody has to get lumber. Everybody has to fix their air conditioner. Everybody's got to put a roof on their house. Everybody's got to buy a new washer and dryer everybody's got to buy a new washing machine etc.

But all those things are way harder on a poor person than on a rich person and all those tariffs will raise the prices of all those things really hurting the working person.

It's not that it doesn't affect a rich person. It's just that it doesn't matter because they're rich and it's a tiny fraction of their money that they have to spend anyway.

Meanwhile, the welfare getting huge tax breaks more than making up for the tariffs.

So basically a massive tax burden shifted onto the working poor in middle class....

 

[Darkballs]

They skirted the intent of the law by using private companies as their proxy, but they absolutely tried to censor opposition opinions

Literally half the requests were for Hunter's dick pics. That isn't a lie. That's a genuine fact and a testament to just how determined you guys were to view that hog. The rest were for Covid misinformation and retarded CT's.

But regardless, Twitter turned down whichever ones they felt like. So it's retarded to act like this is an act of censorship. You twats mischaracterized it then in the megathread, and you're doing a sad job of it now.

Oh fuck off

I saw you exercise some self awareness in a Mayberry thread once. You talked about how odd it was that you could conduct yourself like a normal person in all other parts of sherdog, yet immediately went full angry incel when it came to politics.

I suggest you calm down and just take a step back and reflect on how worked up you're getting over me thinking Matt Taibbi is a twat.

 

[SuperAlly]

 

[PurpleDrank]

Nah.

The Constitutional standard for infringing on the 1st Amendment is coercion. Requests to remove posts like Hunter's dick pics, of which half were ignored, can not be called coercion by anyone with an understanding of the word.

I'm more interested in the actual law, than your feelings.

Coercion, in the legal sense, might not fully apply to the Twitter Files scenario. However, the power asymmetry between the government and platforms creates a dynamic where even non-coercive requests can feel coercive in practice. It undermines First Amendment principles by enabling the government to indirectly influence speech through private actors, bypassing constitutional limits on direct censorship. It's a good strategy to do fuck shit within the confines of the law. I feel like Liberals have to be against things like the twitter files because of who supports it.

 

[Witchhunt]

Coercion, in the legal sense, might not fully apply to the Twitter Files scenario. However, the power asymmetry between the government and platforms creates a dynamic where even non-coercive requests can feel coercive in practice. It undermines First Amendment principles by enabling the government to indirectly influence speech through private actors, bypassing constitutional limits on direct censorship. It's a good strategy to do fuck shit within the confines of the law. I feel like Liberals have to be against things like the twitter files because of who supports it.

The media skull fucking is deep on many of these poor souls. Every bastion of true liberalism will be cast away without any remorse if it is portrayed to weaken Trump
In any way.
Like thinking that the FBI, DOJ, NSA or congressional legislators “asking” you to do something is not coercion.
The real funny (sad) part is that it is textbook fascism, the boogie man to end all boogie type creatures..

 

[nhbbear]

Hey man, we've had goodwill on this thread so what these guys are saying is basically correct. It does apply to everybody. The tariff tax applies to everybody but obviously it hurts some working people and poor people way more because everybody has to buy tires.everybody has to buy brakes. Everybody has to get lumber. Everybody has to fix their air conditioner. Everybody's got to put a roof on their house. Everybody's got to buy a new washer and dryer everybody's got to buy a new washing machine etc.

But all those things are way harder on a poor person than on a rich person and all those tariffs will raise the prices of all those things really hurting the working person.

It's not that it doesn't affect a rich person. It's just that it doesn't matter because they're rich and it's a tiny fraction of their money that they have to spend anyway.

Meanwhile, the welfare getting huge tax breaks more than making up for the tariffs.

So basically a massive tax burden shifted onto the working poor in middle class....

I agree with everything being said here. It’s just semantics and it’s a tax on goods that is passed down to the lower classes (and rich alike, but it harms us more than them) and not “raising taxes” like Jack said early on in the convo.

 

[nhbbear]

???

Specifically, you said trump was raising taxes on the lower classes while dropping it for the rich. I believe he will lower taxes on the rich in a misguided attempt at the failed “trickle down economics” and you were arguing that these tariffs were a tax on the lower classes. It’s a semantics issue. I don’t disagree that it will harm the lower classes but he’s not raising taxes in the traditional sense.

 

[nhbbear]

Not sure if lying or stupid at this point.

Fuck right off with that. I am looking for where he said what I am claiming he said. I can tag you in it as well so you see where I am coming from

 

[nhbbear]

Trump is proposing higher tariffs, which is a tax on the middle class and below. And he's also taking about a big tax cut for the rich, which will have to be paid for with some combination of lower spending and higher taxes on everyone else (and the size of it is actually larger than the tariffs).

I think we are way to squeamish about taxing the non-rich, but if we're talking income taxes, it obviously makes sense to start with the highest earners. Income tax isn't the ideal revenue source, though.

Anyway, my broader point there was just that we need to follow reality where it leads, without imposing blindspots. If we need lower deficits, as we currently do, we have to figure out to get it instead of pretending that we can cut rich people's taxes *and* lower deficits or protect all popular programs. Something has to give. Taxes/deficits were just one example.

Again, Trump's most talked about and consistent proposal is a tax increase for the poor and middle class, and the most obvious other move is a tax cut for the rich.

@AWilder

This is where he/started saying he was raising taxes. Later on, it pivots to talk about the tariffs being that tax increase.

 

[AWilder]

Literally half the requests were for Hunter's dick pics. That isn't a lie. That's a genuine fact and a testament to just how determined you guys were to view that hog. The rest were for Covid misinformation and retarded CT's.

But regardless, Twitter turned down whichever ones they felt like. So it's retarded to act like this is an act of censorship. You twats mischaracterized it then in the megathread, and you're doing a sad job of it now.



I saw you exercise some self awareness in a Mayberry thread once. You talked about how odd it was that you could conduct yourself like a normal person in all other parts of sherdog, yet immediately went full angry incel when it came to politics.

I suggest you calm down and just take a step back and reflect on how worked up you're getting over me thinking Matt Taibbi is a twat.

just you wait, he's got a notepad of ramblings ready to copy and paste.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Specifically, you said trump was raising taxes on the lower classes while dropping it for the rich.

Correct. Not what you said just now.

I believe he will lower taxes on the rich in a misguided attempt at the failed “trickle down economics” and you were arguing that these tariffs were a tax on the lower classes. It’s a semantics issue. I don’t disagree that it will harm the lower classes but he’s not raising taxes in the traditional sense.

Again, if you want to call it a non-traditional tax hike, that's fine (though tariffs are a more traditional tax than income taxes). Let's just be honest about it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@AWilder

This is where he/started saying he was raising taxes. Later on, it pivots to talk about the tariffs being that tax increase.

Pivots? I assumed you were familiar with his plan and that you wouldn't try to pretend that tariffs are not taxes.

 

[Natural Order]

@Jack V Savage failed America. This much is known.

 

[RoastBeast]

Like thinking that the FBI, DOJ, NSA or congressional legislators “asking” you to do something is not coercion.
The real funny (sad) part is that it is textbook fascism, the boogie man to end all boogie type creatures..

I've been beating this drum for a while now. Plenty of people around here think the government "asking" you to do something is no different than your neighbor asking you to mow your lawn a little more often to keep the neighborhood looking nice.

It's more like the mob making requests of you. There will be a penalty for not doing what they say in some form or another.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've been beating this drum for a while now. Plenty of people around here think the government "asking" you to do something is no different than your neighbor asking you to mow your lawn a little more often to keep the neighborhood looking nice.

It's more like the mob making requests of you. There will be a penalty for not doing what they say in some form or another.

Except Biden wasn't even holding any office, while Trump was (and Trump also asked, though Taibbi covered that up). And they did turn down requests, indicating definitively that they felt OK doing that.

 

[Darkballs]

Coercion, in the legal sense, might not fully apply to the Twitter Files scenario. However, the power asymmetry between the government and platforms creates a dynamic where even non-coercive requests can feel coercive in practice. It undermines First Amendment principles by enabling the government to indirectly influence speech through private actors, bypassing constitutional limits on direct censorship. It's a good strategy to do fuck shit within the confines of the law. I feel like Liberals have to be against things like the twitter files because of who supports it.

I understand the sentiment and I believe SCOTUS took that into account in their ruling.

The problem with applying it to the twitter files is twofold: 1) It's hard for me to find any leaning by the federal government that would amount to twitter abandoning what they really wanted to do, when twitter denied or otherwise ignored half the governments request, and; 2) Federal requests to the media to not print or edit content is not remotely new. It's happened throughout our history. They even made movie about it where Meryl Streep won an Oscar. So despite the chicken littles on the right, I don't see the requests to remove Covid CT's or dick pics as being that out of the norm.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

I understand the sentiment and I believe SCOTUS took that into account in their ruling.

The problem with applying it to the twitter files is twofold: 1) It's hard for me to find any leaning by the federal government that would amount to twitter abandoning what they really wanted to do, when twitter denied or otherwise ignored half the governments request, and; 2) Federal requests to the media to not print or edit content is not remotely new. It's happened throughout our history. They even made movie about it where Meryl Streep won an Oscar. So despite the chicken littles on the right, I don't see the requests to remove Covid CT's or dick pics as being that out of the norm.

This is why you have never won a single case.

 

[Darkballs]

This is why you have never won a single case.

Edgy.

Now try refuting anything I just said.

 

[PurpleDrank]

I understand the sentiment and I believe SCOTUS took that into account in their ruling.

The problem with applying it to the twitter files is twofold: 1) It's hard for me to find any leaning by the federal government that would amount to twitter abandoning what they really wanted to do, when twitter denied or otherwise ignored half the governments request, and; 2) Federal requests to the media to not print or edit content is not remotely new. It's happened throughout our history. They even made movie about it where Meryl Streep won an Oscar. So despite the chicken littles on the right, I don't see the requests to remove Covid CT's or dick pics as being that out of the norm.

1), the question isnt about total submission to every request, but if even a fraction were accepted due to undue inluence, is that okay or does that skirt the line of what should be acceptable?

2), I could argue that Twitter and social media apps like it are novel in a few ways, but if I accept the similarities to what you decribe that happened historically, I'd still be against it in principle in so far as no content was breaking the law. "New information starts out as misinformation", so im against any suppression against it, especially by proxy from the government.