First, the fifth amendment allows the government to seize private property with just compensation.
Second, the situations are nowhere near the same. In the AT&T case they at least had the weak argument that ownership of the physical last-mile infrastructure gave AT&T a form of natural monopoly on communications; Twitter has no such monopoly on online discussion. If the government is that concerned about potential bias on Twitter they are free to host their own functionally-equivalent, politically-neutral site.
Yes, there are differences in the market that each company operate but that doesn't detract from the initial question: "Are platforms of speech critical to political discourse in the country and should they be protected?" Being granted a monopoly by the government under the premise that AT&T may not limit their service by political ideology is part of that 'just compensation'.
The phone lines were seen as critical infrastructure that if the government had not taken action to ensure political neutral protection then the nation would be worse off as a whole. The point of the Takings clause and eminent domain. Are platforms of speech that important if they can affect the elections? It is a new service that is under scrutiny because of this perceived importance. News outlets are of similar importance but the distinction between them is that those news outlets are saying something vs AT&T/Twitter allowing others to say something. If you allow others to say something that means you are an enabler of rights of the citizens. Is that something that we should protect?
Yes, the town-square analogy isn't perfect but if a private thing is important enough for the whole nation, through just compensation it becomes as if it were a public thing.
When the right to free speech conflicts with the right to equal protection, you have to decide which right wins.
Now that is an interesting question. Is the 1st amendment the most important right the people have? I would argue, yes. In laymen terms the rights we have can be summed up as: "You can say what you want, defend yourself while saying it, you get fair trials if accused of a crime, and every citizen gets these rights."
The 14th amendment is about who is a citizen and that you cannot limit rights of citizens defined in the constitution. Rights has always been limited to citizens but who is a citizen has been expanded since the nations inception. That is what I like about American history. From start to present has been about expanding who is a citizen to get the rights the constitution protects. It may have been a slow and ugly processes but if it were not for the ability to speak freely about the issues we face as a nation we can never address the citizens that may be left behind in the protections of the constitution.
The Declaration of Independence set up the ground work philosophy for the nation to be ever inclusive of the cherished rights of speech and self defense. 'All men are created equal' is the spirit of the 14th amendment. If we could not say who was not free then we could never fight for those people for the freedom they should have.
Threats and harassment are already illegal. Hate speech and racism is not illegal. Twitter decides the policy by which their users can operate in regards to a right of the citizens. The baker and AT&T cannot.
No one is arguing if threats should be illegal. It is about the offensive 'hate speech' which is in question. just like AT&T cannot limit the service it provides based on political ideology because it was deemed critical, should twitter get a pass even though they have an impact on the elections? It is a question about criticality in comparison to AT&T or Twitter.
Oh, I see. So only some constitutional rights apply. Thanks. There is legal precedent that a private company cannot limit its service on political ideology if it is determined to be critical. The question I ask in the GP: "Are platforms of speech critical to political discourse in the country and should they be protected? If not, then why is it different for a baker exercising their constitutionally protected religious belief with their private company?"
Regardless of sexual orientation being a choice, it should not mean that the the religious freedom of an owner of a private company should be set aside if a platform of speech, that can determine the outcome of an election, gets a pass on political censorship because they are a private company. AT&T cannot limit their service by political ideology. A baker cannot limit their service based on the owners political ideology. Yet, Twitter can limit their platform based on their political ideology even though they can affect elections (just like AT&T) unlike the baker.
The real question to ask is what impact does each example have? The baker: loss in customers, gay couple go to different baker. AT&T: able to shut down political discourse and adversely affect the elections and institutions of the nation by shutting off a critical avenue of communication to citizens. Twitter: able to shut down political discourse and adversely affect the elections and institutions by shutting off a platform of speech for citizens.
Indeed, when you silence an idea it only makes that idea grow and fester. The KKK has been religated to a few hundred die hard racists because everyone could see the stupidity for their own on display. But with actions we see from the left, like Twitter, you get people taking violent action to shut down peoples constitutional right to protest which galvanize support and give them sympathy.
Let the racists speak and their stupidity is on full display. Silence them with violence and no-platforming tactics creates sympathy and the illusion that they are speaking truth to power as they are now appear oppressed by the established norms that grew out of rejecting their bullshit ideas.
Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”
Now, flip that around to the current/. article.
Or:
“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”
Let me do a little word swapping:
“While we all agree that freedom of speech is important, no one’s speech make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said staff attorney. “No one is asking Twitter’s owner to change their beliefs, but treating political opponents differently because of what they say is discrimination plain and simple.”
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple? They are both private companies, yet one gets to decide who uses their service based on political ideology.
At least with Twitter it can be argued that it is a platform for speech and as such the law should reflect Twitters impact on political discourse and outcomes on elections. Just like a town-square you cannot be kicked out for racist speech and yes it doesn't mean you have to listen it (walk away or block people. the power is in the individual not the state). AT&T was determined critical and cannot limit its service on political ideology so there is legal precedent.
Are platforms of speech critical to political discourse in the country and should they be protected? If not, then why is it different for a baker exercising their constitutionally protected religious belief with their private company?
There is a difference between banter among friends and different political positions told to voters and private interests. You know, that thing called context. If you can't tell the difference you are hopeless.
It's not a democratic process as long as there is an electoral college. It's an oligarchic process.
The POTUS leads a union of states, not a mob. Clinton ignored smaller states like WI to her own demise. The EC ensures the smaller states are not disregarded as 'fly over' states to be ignored by the executive (Obama anyone?). Just like the bicameral congress, the EC guards against the flaws of democracy. The legislative has the Senate and executive has the EC to ensure stability in the union by ensuring a majority of states support the POTUS instead of a mob on the coasts.
The executive branch is a special case and is supposed to represent the entire country, not just the individual states.
The POTUS leads a union of states, not a mob. It could be argued that one of the reasons Clinton lost was because of smaller states that she took advantage of like WI. The point is to ensure that the POTUS has the interests of the smaller states as much as the larger states instead of disregarding them as 'fly over' states. The Senate is for the legislative branch of government and for the executive branch to ensure the smaller state interests are not ignored there needs to be a counter balance to the large urban cities. Obama and Clinton had rhetoric that would have a deleterious impact on smaller states with weak economies (while those policies maybe good for climate, those people should not be left behind or ignored by the POTUS and forced into a position that is counter to their needs by the executive).
The point was to keep smaller states from getting disenfranchised and to keep the union together. Democracy has flaws and just like the bicameral congress the EC is a guard against the flaws of democracy for the executive branch of government. Again, the POTUS leads a union of states, not a mob.
Does that mean a baker should not forced to bake a cake for a gay couple? I am confused, both are private services offered yet one cannot decide on their policy for the use of their service.
Intentions don't matter: the road to hell is already paved with all the good ones.
That is rich considering "the ends justify the means" actions from Hillary and all the busy-body-do-gooder-virtue-signaling-hypocrites that refuse to act like an adult when they don't get their way or are confronted with a different point of view.
lol, sure thing buddy. You go ahead and think that all you want because you're a big boy aren't you?
It wasn't one thing that did Hillary in. It was everything in aggregate. Trump won because he was the Not Hillary candidate. Trump is bad and Hillary is bad. Deciding who is worse is an opinion that doesn't matter anymore because enough people think Clinton was worse. Get over it. There are plenty of reasons just because you are blind to them or don't think they are important doesn't mean they don't exist.
I think you are incapable of understanding why people voted the way they did without dismissing them off as idiots or racists or whatever the new flavor excuse is purported to be by media talking heads. Power to ya, just don't be surprised if the DNC didn't learn their lessons and lose in 2020.
Um, I am not sure who lies more because I think Clinton is better at lying so it is harder to sift through the lies and truths. I wouldn't be surprised if they lied an equal amount i.e. whenever they speak. At least the media will be useful in this endeavor because they actually hate Trump instead of making excuses for Clinton.
Half the country thought Trump was the lesser evil of the two... "But Hillary" is a manifestation of that. Big shocker. That is irrelevant now except when justifying the outcome of the election to cry babies. After the tantrums from babies it will be "But Obama".
Honestly, for a low/. ID it comes off that this is your first election.
If it is globalization then the end of the TPP sounds like a win for anyone against globalization, right? You can blame Trump for that. It might not have ended globalization but fore sure a hit and a slow down.
Can we please make the distinction between illegal immigration and legal immigration? Obama has started mass deportation not a peep from the left but its okay when the 'right people' do it. Obama refused to uphold the existing immigration laws and when AZ's sheriff decided to enforce it on his own, he was sued by the Feds and rightfully so because constitutional delegation of state and federal power. Or maybe those companies we hear about on/. that have their local workers train foreign replacements is good for the locals and not abusing/breaking the law? Funny enough, there was only one candidate on either side that paid lip service to that issue. Care to guess who that is?
Sure, support retraining all you want and that is a nice sound bite but that is an appeasement too little too late. If the people in power cared they would have done something more to help those adversely effected by shrinking industries but why would they care about 'fly over' states or coal country? It is hard to replace jobs and promote retraining in a town that was dependent on one industry or factory. I am all for science and climate change policy but lets not pretend that there is an easy solution to the people working in coal country.
People also don't like to hear that they aren't oppressed. I notice that the "straight white guys are oppressed" idiots have mostly shut up now that straight white guys got a straight white guy who is also a misogynist, racist and general asshat into power.
Regressives tend to always bring up race and sex when it isn't part of the conversation. Affluent spoiled brats in universities getting a useless degree while bitching about halloween costumes and bad statistics are not oppressed by any measure. I am curious and wanted to ask a bone-fide regressive: When are statistical disparities not racist or sexist?
I think a better way to phrase it; He is bad at lying. It is easier to catch him in a lie to hold him accountable than a seasoned professional liar like Hillary Clinton. She has been at this game a lot longer than Trump and with the media support how were Americans, or anyone, supposed to know what she wanted or thought and how would they hold her accountable?
At least with Trump the media won't be in love to gloss over any wrong doing and will be willing to say; you lied. Do you really think the media would have done the same for Clinton?
Yea, if only people didn't insult the other side with all the isms and ists known to man and try to understand the issues that face those constituencies. No, instead they tried the same tactics and tried to push one of the most corrupted politicians in recent memory down everyone throat. Sure, Trump may take that 'most corrupted' title but the fact is, right now, he isn't that.
I may agree with democrats on issues but the way they operate makes it so I can't vote for the policies I want. The ends do not justify the means and I cannot support unethical behavior with a vote. It appears many Americans can't either.
Then again, you want to punish people for different political opinions and who 'vote the wrong way'. The sad thing is that calling you for what you truly are, a bigot, doesn't have the same impact because of the bullshit isms and ists insults from the left devalued any meaning those words have. The black lynching mob of KKK members are now the same name as someone that votes against known corruption. Fucking pathetic. You are regressive and intolerant of differing political thought. Why would anyone want to listen to someone like that?
Well said. I think the post you are responding to is a sentiment that has been around for centuries. Particularly so since the Industrial Revolution when technology exploded. It is easy to see that technology is changing faster and faster. The speed of which technology changes does not change what technology does for us as a species nor the morals and ethics an individual should have when using said technologies.
All technology has a good and a bad side. Even technology that saves people's lives adds to the population. The technology that created the nuclear weapons can generate power when done right. New technology can put people out of work, but that might beat subsistence farming. It sure dose for me anyhow.
No matter how well-intentioned an invention or discovery maybe it is the user that determines the moral use. This has always been the case and always will be (AI might be an exception since if it can make decisions on its own it creates is own moral and ethical questions but ignoring that for now). We should not think that the trend of technology will stop making our lives easier or better. That is the point of technology from the first rock tools to super computers creating simulations of the universe. Just because the speed at which technology progresses is increasing does not mean the fundamental principle behind technology will change. Those first rock tools allowed early humans to change the environment to better suite their needs but also allowed for more efficient tribal conflicts. Are we better off as a species because the first inventions could be used for immoral things? Yes, we are. Those immoral actions are the result of individuals utilizing tools to change the environment to their needs; even if their needs means the end of a rival tribe.
Even the internet and the 'information overload' is not something new. The printing press had a similar effect which would eventually lead to the highest levels of literacy the world has ever seen. Are we better off because the printing press created more yellow journalism? Yes, we are because at the same time literacy empowers the individual. The internet gives those literate individuals more information which forces them to sift through that information to find truth. The amount of information or the speed at which information is consumed will not change the fact that the world is better off by communicating and understanding each other.
Any future tech will have the same moral dilemmas. It is the individual that will decide if it is good or bad no matter how well intentioned (or not) it was created.
If it is EPA rules then Trump can change it day one with an executive order. I say this begrudgingly. The EPA is a federal bureaucracy and the POTUS doesn't need congress to decide the rules that it operates under to enforce the law.
Why don't you finish that quote? "In Order to form a more perfect Union". A Union of what you may ask? Why, a Union of States. "... and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The POTUS executes the law of the federal government which governs the many States of the Union. The POTUS does not represent the people of the states.
The point of the only national election is for who leads the United States. Not who will lead the citizens of the states. If you are concerned about your representation to the federal government you should speak with your house rep and senator.
If states didn't need influence we wouldn't have a Senate and a House of Representatives. Our government is formed on the premise that democracy while laudable is flawed. The only national election is about who represents the United States. Not the citizens of the states.
We are a Republic. We elect our representatives by democracy. Democracy is laudable but flawed which is why we have a bicameral congress. You know, the Senate to represent the states and the House to represent the people? Our government is formed on the premise that democracy is flawed and that no one institution has all the power, even the people (which is arguably a branch of power in our government that has restrictions and independence just like the states and feds).
Slashdot Mirror
First, the fifth amendment allows the government to seize private property with just compensation.
Second, the situations are nowhere near the same. In the AT&T case they at least had the weak argument that ownership of the physical last-mile infrastructure gave AT&T a form of natural monopoly on communications; Twitter has no such monopoly on online discussion. If the government is that concerned about potential bias on Twitter they are free to host their own functionally-equivalent, politically-neutral site.
Yes, there are differences in the market that each company operate but that doesn't detract from the initial question: "Are platforms of speech critical to political discourse in the country and should they be protected?" Being granted a monopoly by the government under the premise that AT&T may not limit their service by political ideology is part of that 'just compensation'.
The phone lines were seen as critical infrastructure that if the government had not taken action to ensure political neutral protection then the nation would be worse off as a whole. The point of the Takings clause and eminent domain. Are platforms of speech that important if they can affect the elections? It is a new service that is under scrutiny because of this perceived importance. News outlets are of similar importance but the distinction between them is that those news outlets are saying something vs AT&T/Twitter allowing others to say something. If you allow others to say something that means you are an enabler of rights of the citizens. Is that something that we should protect?
Yes, the town-square analogy isn't perfect but if a private thing is important enough for the whole nation, through just compensation it becomes as if it were a public thing.
When the right to free speech conflicts with the right to equal protection, you have to decide which right wins.
Now that is an interesting question. Is the 1st amendment the most important right the people have? I would argue, yes. In laymen terms the rights we have can be summed up as: "You can say what you want, defend yourself while saying it, you get fair trials if accused of a crime, and every citizen gets these rights."
The 14th amendment is about who is a citizen and that you cannot limit rights of citizens defined in the constitution. Rights has always been limited to citizens but who is a citizen has been expanded since the nations inception. That is what I like about American history. From start to present has been about expanding who is a citizen to get the rights the constitution protects. It may have been a slow and ugly processes but if it were not for the ability to speak freely about the issues we face as a nation we can never address the citizens that may be left behind in the protections of the constitution.
The Declaration of Independence set up the ground work philosophy for the nation to be ever inclusive of the cherished rights of speech and self defense. 'All men are created equal' is the spirit of the 14th amendment. If we could not say who was not free then we could never fight for those people for the freedom they should have.
Threats and harassment are already illegal. Hate speech and racism is not illegal. Twitter decides the policy by which their users can operate in regards to a right of the citizens. The baker and AT&T cannot.
No one is arguing if threats should be illegal. It is about the offensive 'hate speech' which is in question. just like AT&T cannot limit the service it provides based on political ideology because it was deemed critical, should twitter get a pass even though they have an impact on the elections? It is a question about criticality in comparison to AT&T or Twitter.
Oh, I see. So only some constitutional rights apply. Thanks. There is legal precedent that a private company cannot limit its service on political ideology if it is determined to be critical. The question I ask in the GP: "Are platforms of speech critical to political discourse in the country and should they be protected? If not, then why is it different for a baker exercising their constitutionally protected religious belief with their private company?"
Regardless of sexual orientation being a choice, it should not mean that the the religious freedom of an owner of a private company should be set aside if a platform of speech, that can determine the outcome of an election, gets a pass on political censorship because they are a private company. AT&T cannot limit their service by political ideology. A baker cannot limit their service based on the owners political ideology. Yet, Twitter can limit their platform based on their political ideology even though they can affect elections (just like AT&T) unlike the baker.
The real question to ask is what impact does each example have? The baker: loss in customers, gay couple go to different baker. AT&T: able to shut down political discourse and adversely affect the elections and institutions of the nation by shutting off a critical avenue of communication to citizens. Twitter: able to shut down political discourse and adversely affect the elections and institutions by shutting off a platform of speech for citizens.
Indeed, when you silence an idea it only makes that idea grow and fester. The KKK has been religated to a few hundred die hard racists because everyone could see the stupidity for their own on display. But with actions we see from the left, like Twitter, you get people taking violent action to shut down peoples constitutional right to protest which galvanize support and give them sympathy.
Let the racists speak and their stupidity is on full display. Silence them with violence and no-platforming tactics creates sympathy and the illusion that they are speaking truth to power as they are now appear oppressed by the established norms that grew out of rejecting their bullshit ideas.
You sure about that?
I like this gem from that article:
Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”
Now, flip that around to the current /. article.
Or:
“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”
Let me do a little word swapping:
“While we all agree that freedom of speech is important, no one’s speech make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said staff attorney. “No one is asking Twitter’s owner to change their beliefs, but treating political opponents differently because of what they say is discrimination plain and simple.”
emphasis on changes.
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple? They are both private companies, yet one gets to decide who uses their service based on political ideology.
At least with Twitter it can be argued that it is a platform for speech and as such the law should reflect Twitters impact on political discourse and outcomes on elections. Just like a town-square you cannot be kicked out for racist speech and yes it doesn't mean you have to listen it (walk away or block people. the power is in the individual not the state). AT&T was determined critical and cannot limit its service on political ideology so there is legal precedent.
Are platforms of speech critical to political discourse in the country and should they be protected? If not, then why is it different for a baker exercising their constitutionally protected religious belief with their private company?
There is a difference between banter among friends and different political positions told to voters and private interests. You know, that thing called context. If you can't tell the difference you are hopeless.
It's not a democratic process as long as there is an electoral college. It's an oligarchic process.
The POTUS leads a union of states, not a mob. Clinton ignored smaller states like WI to her own demise. The EC ensures the smaller states are not disregarded as 'fly over' states to be ignored by the executive (Obama anyone?). Just like the bicameral congress, the EC guards against the flaws of democracy. The legislative has the Senate and executive has the EC to ensure stability in the union by ensuring a majority of states support the POTUS instead of a mob on the coasts.
The executive branch is a special case and is supposed to represent the entire country, not just the individual states.
The POTUS leads a union of states, not a mob. It could be argued that one of the reasons Clinton lost was because of smaller states that she took advantage of like WI. The point is to ensure that the POTUS has the interests of the smaller states as much as the larger states instead of disregarding them as 'fly over' states. The Senate is for the legislative branch of government and for the executive branch to ensure the smaller state interests are not ignored there needs to be a counter balance to the large urban cities. Obama and Clinton had rhetoric that would have a deleterious impact on smaller states with weak economies (while those policies maybe good for climate, those people should not be left behind or ignored by the POTUS and forced into a position that is counter to their needs by the executive).
The point was to keep smaller states from getting disenfranchised and to keep the union together. Democracy has flaws and just like the bicameral congress the EC is a guard against the flaws of democracy for the executive branch of government. Again, the POTUS leads a union of states, not a mob.
Does that mean a baker should not forced to bake a cake for a gay couple? I am confused, both are private services offered yet one cannot decide on their policy for the use of their service.
Intentions don't matter: the road to hell is already paved with all the good ones.
That is rich considering "the ends justify the means" actions from Hillary and all the busy-body-do-gooder-virtue-signaling-hypocrites that refuse to act like an adult when they don't get their way or are confronted with a different point of view.
lol, sure thing buddy. You go ahead and think that all you want because you're a big boy aren't you?
It wasn't one thing that did Hillary in. It was everything in aggregate. Trump won because he was the Not Hillary candidate. Trump is bad and Hillary is bad. Deciding who is worse is an opinion that doesn't matter anymore because enough people think Clinton was worse. Get over it. There are plenty of reasons just because you are blind to them or don't think they are important doesn't mean they don't exist.
I think you are incapable of understanding why people voted the way they did without dismissing them off as idiots or racists or whatever the new flavor excuse is purported to be by media talking heads. Power to ya, just don't be surprised if the DNC didn't learn their lessons and lose in 2020.
Um, I am not sure who lies more because I think Clinton is better at lying so it is harder to sift through the lies and truths. I wouldn't be surprised if they lied an equal amount i.e. whenever they speak. At least the media will be useful in this endeavor because they actually hate Trump instead of making excuses for Clinton.
Half the country thought Trump was the lesser evil of the two... "But Hillary" is a manifestation of that. Big shocker. That is irrelevant now except when justifying the outcome of the election to cry babies. After the tantrums from babies it will be "But Obama".
Honestly, for a low /. ID it comes off that this is your first election.
huh? Perhaps, you mistaken me for someone else. All I said was the Hillary is a better liar than Trump and the media likes Clinton... Is that false?
If it is globalization then the end of the TPP sounds like a win for anyone against globalization, right? You can blame Trump for that. It might not have ended globalization but fore sure a hit and a slow down.
Can we please make the distinction between illegal immigration and legal immigration? Obama has started mass deportation not a peep from the left but its okay when the 'right people' do it. Obama refused to uphold the existing immigration laws and when AZ's sheriff decided to enforce it on his own, he was sued by the Feds and rightfully so because constitutional delegation of state and federal power. Or maybe those companies we hear about on /. that have their local workers train foreign replacements is good for the locals and not abusing/breaking the law? Funny enough, there was only one candidate on either side that paid lip service to that issue. Care to guess who that is?
Sure, support retraining all you want and that is a nice sound bite but that is an appeasement too little too late. If the people in power cared they would have done something more to help those adversely effected by shrinking industries but why would they care about 'fly over' states or coal country? It is hard to replace jobs and promote retraining in a town that was dependent on one industry or factory. I am all for science and climate change policy but lets not pretend that there is an easy solution to the people working in coal country.
People also don't like to hear that they aren't oppressed. I notice that the "straight white guys are oppressed" idiots have mostly shut up now that straight white guys got a straight white guy who is also a misogynist, racist and general asshat into power.
Regressives tend to always bring up race and sex when it isn't part of the conversation. Affluent spoiled brats in universities getting a useless degree while bitching about halloween costumes and bad statistics are not oppressed by any measure. I am curious and wanted to ask a bone-fide regressive: When are statistical disparities not racist or sexist?
I think a better way to phrase it; He is bad at lying. It is easier to catch him in a lie to hold him accountable than a seasoned professional liar like Hillary Clinton. She has been at this game a lot longer than Trump and with the media support how were Americans, or anyone, supposed to know what she wanted or thought and how would they hold her accountable?
At least with Trump the media won't be in love to gloss over any wrong doing and will be willing to say; you lied. Do you really think the media would have done the same for Clinton?
Yea, if only people didn't insult the other side with all the isms and ists known to man and try to understand the issues that face those constituencies. No, instead they tried the same tactics and tried to push one of the most corrupted politicians in recent memory down everyone throat. Sure, Trump may take that 'most corrupted' title but the fact is, right now, he isn't that.
I may agree with democrats on issues but the way they operate makes it so I can't vote for the policies I want. The ends do not justify the means and I cannot support unethical behavior with a vote. It appears many Americans can't either.
Then again, you want to punish people for different political opinions and who 'vote the wrong way'. The sad thing is that calling you for what you truly are, a bigot, doesn't have the same impact because of the bullshit isms and ists insults from the left devalued any meaning those words have. The black lynching mob of KKK members are now the same name as someone that votes against known corruption. Fucking pathetic. You are regressive and intolerant of differing political thought. Why would anyone want to listen to someone like that?
Well said. I think the post you are responding to is a sentiment that has been around for centuries. Particularly so since the Industrial Revolution when technology exploded. It is easy to see that technology is changing faster and faster. The speed of which technology changes does not change what technology does for us as a species nor the morals and ethics an individual should have when using said technologies.
All technology has a good and a bad side. Even technology that saves people's lives adds to the population. The technology that created the nuclear weapons can generate power when done right. New technology can put people out of work, but that might beat subsistence farming. It sure dose for me anyhow.
No matter how well-intentioned an invention or discovery maybe it is the user that determines the moral use. This has always been the case and always will be (AI might be an exception since if it can make decisions on its own it creates is own moral and ethical questions but ignoring that for now). We should not think that the trend of technology will stop making our lives easier or better. That is the point of technology from the first rock tools to super computers creating simulations of the universe. Just because the speed at which technology progresses is increasing does not mean the fundamental principle behind technology will change. Those first rock tools allowed early humans to change the environment to better suite their needs but also allowed for more efficient tribal conflicts. Are we better off as a species because the first inventions could be used for immoral things? Yes, we are. Those immoral actions are the result of individuals utilizing tools to change the environment to their needs; even if their needs means the end of a rival tribe.
Even the internet and the 'information overload' is not something new. The printing press had a similar effect which would eventually lead to the highest levels of literacy the world has ever seen. Are we better off because the printing press created more yellow journalism? Yes, we are because at the same time literacy empowers the individual. The internet gives those literate individuals more information which forces them to sift through that information to find truth. The amount of information or the speed at which information is consumed will not change the fact that the world is better off by communicating and understanding each other.
Any future tech will have the same moral dilemmas. It is the individual that will decide if it is good or bad no matter how well intentioned (or not) it was created.
We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union.
A union of what? States.
and he will, of course, have to back down on that
If it is EPA rules then Trump can change it day one with an executive order. I say this begrudgingly. The EPA is a federal bureaucracy and the POTUS doesn't need congress to decide the rules that it operates under to enforce the law.
Why don't you finish that quote? "In Order to form a more perfect Union". A Union of what you may ask? Why, a Union of States. "... and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The POTUS executes the law of the federal government which governs the many States of the Union. The POTUS does not represent the people of the states.
The point of the only national election is for who leads the United States. Not who will lead the citizens of the states. If you are concerned about your representation to the federal government you should speak with your house rep and senator.
If states didn't need influence we wouldn't have a Senate and a House of Representatives. Our government is formed on the premise that democracy while laudable is flawed. The only national election is about who represents the United States. Not the citizens of the states.
Really?
We are a Republic. We elect our representatives by democracy. Democracy is laudable but flawed which is why we have a bicameral congress. You know, the Senate to represent the states and the House to represent the people? Our government is formed on the premise that democracy is flawed and that no one institution has all the power, even the people (which is arguably a branch of power in our government that has restrictions and independence just like the states and feds).
You are being pedantic.