The state of the republican party

Except there is a social cost to such things as we saw in the wake of ISIS. Taking this attitude we might as well do away with crimes such as exploiting runaway children or women who end up being sex trafficked after being lured in by false premises since they were too stupid.

Also the best way to deal with a threat like terrorism is to address the root causes of them and stop people from becoming terrorists in the first place.

Would that apply to a corporation that applies financial or other pressure to keep individuals or other smaller businesses from discussing or publishing things they don’t like? For example what if a large advertiser tells a local newpaper they don’t like a story they are running that puts the advertiser in a bad light.

Except doesn’t the government and members of the government also have free speech rights so wouldn’t they have the right to ask social media to remove or otherwise moderate content?

 

Children no, because they don't have the capacity to consent. Adult women, yes. You are allowed to suffer the consequences of your own decisions. If you hook up with a pimp because he promises you he loves you and gives you drugs, you cannot be surprised when you are turned out.

No, that would be appeasement and is the worst way to deal with terrorism. The best way to deal with terrorism is to respond swiftly and with overwhelming force, ensuring that none of the objectives of the terrorist organization are accomplished. You want to completely disincentivize terrorism.

No. An entity is not required to buy ads from your newspaper. The newspaper is also free to tell the advertiser to kick rocks and publish what they like (aka journalistic integrity) in hopes that other advertising revenue will make up for the loss.

The government doesn't have freedom of speech, no. Individuals in their own capacity, sure (though they would need to be very careful that they are not representing the government).

 

It's only just begun. Imagine if this country was led by a Republican again. Vote Democrat in 2024 if you aren't on the gay hating, race baiting band wagon of white straight men trying to strip rights from those they don't agree with. This country shouldn't be ruled by anyone who can't keep their nose out of how law abiding people live their lives. Hate towards others is never good.

 

that’s at least 6 anti-LGBT bills a day

How do they even find the time to come up with so many?

 

They don't do anything productive when it comes to addressing the real issues in this country, that's for sure. They are obsessed with homophobia.

 

More power to them. They are completely alienating Millennials and. Gen Z who support student loan forgiveness, LGBTQ, and abortion and who are much less likely to be Christian and much more appreciative of diversity.

Day by day they are becoming the Neanderthal. Eventually they will all die off and we can finally have single payer healthcare and real gun control.

 

Republican law nakers either too busy making anti lgbt bills or they’re hiring same sex escorts off back page.

no time to be a leader.

Republican law makers are either too busy drafting anti lgbt bills or they’re hiring same sex escorts off back page for their weird kinks.

Nothing else to stand in their way.

 

Amazing. Twitter trolls baited Doug by joining the race a few weeks ago by posting a fake poll. Doug decides to hop into the primary and now he's leading the Republicans in the primary. This is a guy who lost by 15 points and is a certified nut job who's unelectable.

I've never seen a more stupid political party in my life.

 

the self-admitted liar is leading the charge,

,

the homely one just approved a bill on Tuesday eliminating a requirement for children under 16 to obtain state documentation in order to work. The new Arkansas law is just one of
a number of state bills loosening child labor restrictions, despite evidence that young children are already engaged in dangerous and exploitative labor throughout the country.​

 

Many of the women lured to be "brides" for ISIS fighters were minors. Many of the fighters from the US and other countries were also teens. In many of these cases they were radicalized online.

So making it difficult for terrorists to get their message out on social media is appeasement?

Also we occupied two countries for decades and killed possibly hundreds of thouosands in the name of fighting terrorism, yet we are still dealing with terrorism.

And the newspaper can also go bankrupt as they lose their major revenue streams. Again this is problem with Libertarianism, that a government shouldn't be able to even ask a private entity something even if they aren't applying any legal force behind the ask, but that a private corporation with large market control and financial resources can use that force to compel other entities to do their bidding.

Most individuals working for the government especially those in politically appointed postiions likely share the same beliefs that the government shares. Are you saying then their free speech is restricted because they happen to be representing the government and agree with the government? For example Karine Jean Pierre is Biden's press secretary so if she were to state that she feels that Twitter should restrict content that is claiming that Joe Biden is PRC stooge who should be elimnated she shouldn't be able to do that because she is representing the government?

 

Pure speculation on my part but this almost seems like a move by Democrats.

 

Its funny because republican senate committee is literally spending tens of millions on recruiting top talent but their voters don't care about winning. They have no idea what harm trump has done to the party. Voters don't care about winning or policy.

They're literally nominating the worst candidate possible who has zero chance cuz of a troll on Twitter. It's so funny lol

 

Okay, and? I don't think we need to make all online spaces child friendly. If people commit crimes against children, there are already laws for that and they don't require censorship.

No, "addressing the root cause" of terrorism is appeasement. The root cause tends to be some people don't like what a nation is doing and take up arms outside of lawful warfare to attempt to change policy. As an example, the root cause of both ISIS and al Queda was infidels in the Holy Land. Addressing the root cause would mean getting the infidels out of the Holy Land. I am not in favor of that. I would prefer to let them be pissed and fight them as necessary. Making it difficult for terrorists to get their message out on social media is censorship.

Yes. We killed lots of terrorists, and there will always be more terrorists. We can kill them and the next ones and the next ones, ad infinitum.

I think you mean that's the great thing about libertarianism, that private entities are allowed to make their own choices.

It depends on in what capacity she is doing so. If she sends an email to twitter from a private account that says, "Hi, I'm Karine. I don't like content on Twitter that calls President Biden a PRC stooge. Can you take it down please?", that would be fine. If she tweets at them from the official press secretary account that the administration would like tweets calling President Biden a PRC stooge removed, that would be government censorship.

 

What could go wrong?

 

Do they execute pedophiles & rapists?
Do they provide women free healthcare, and free babysitting, healthcare, food, clothing, and free college education for the baby if they can't afford it? Seriously, this is what the Republican Party is becoming. Attack the women, ignore the circumstances.