Maga’s war on the first amendment
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 01:35 last edited by
Shut up
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 01:36 last edited by
I see what you did there…
-
Sorry they’re not Maga, plus they didn’t really sell themselves as the free speech alternative to the status quo.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 01:43 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
Sorry they’re not Maga, plus they didn’t really sell themselves as the free speech alternative to the status quo.
You're right.
They just came out and said it. That's much better.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 01:48 last edited by
Damn, the butthurt is strong.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 01:50 last edited by
IOW, you got nothing to say.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 01:58 last edited by
Not really.
Seltzer made a fuck-up so bad, it had to be intentional. If Trump wants to call her out on it, he'll have to stand in line.
She's lost her job and is currently " exploring other job opportunities".
To get your panties in a wad over this one is picayunish. They'll be much better stuff down the road, I'm sure
-
Sorry they’re not Maga, plus they didn’t really sell themselves as the free speech alternative to the status quo.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 02:48 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
Sorry they’re not Maga
2008 to the present day should have taught us a lot about the very legal, very accessible means by which anyone can compromise the first amendment. Focusing on Magas only is not only a waste of time but ludicrous in this context.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 03:06 last edited by
TDS performance art.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 03:17 last edited by
Trump posted something stupid on Social Media? Holy Shit, this changes everything! I mean, yeah, he sent similar stupid and vaguely threatening tweets during his first administration and never actually did anything, but this time is totally different!
Call me when he actually has his justice department conduct an investigation.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 03:23 last edited by
Of course, it’s rather odd that everyone is focusing on this one specific poll. Quite frankly, it’s hard to believe there weren’t more outlier errors. And I mean that quite literally. It requires a willful ignorance to believe that all the polls were coming back 47-47 give or take 1% in either direction. It’s built in the very nature of polling that there are going to be weird cycles where you get very unlikely results. You run enough samples, you will see some wild results…
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 04:28 last edited by
The great Vivek Ramaswamy articulated the MAGA platform on free speech:
Link to video -
@jon-nyc said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
Sorry they’re not Maga
2008 to the present day should have taught us a lot about the very legal, very accessible means by which anyone can compromise the first amendment. Focusing on Magas only is not only a waste of time but ludicrous in this context.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 06:27 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
@jon-nyc said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
Sorry they’re not Maga
2008 to the present day should have taught us a lot about the very legal, very accessible means by which anyone can compromise the first amendment. Focusing on Magas only is not only a waste of time but ludicrous in this context.
They’re now in charge so it seems quite relevant.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 06:28 last edited by
@Horace said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
TDS performance art.
TDS (noun): (1) Trump Derangement Syndrome. (2) A handy epithet used to dismiss claims that offend one's sensibilities without having to go to the bother of providing any arguments.
-
Trump posted something stupid on Social Media? Holy Shit, this changes everything! I mean, yeah, he sent similar stupid and vaguely threatening tweets during his first administration and never actually did anything, but this time is totally different!
Call me when he actually has his justice department conduct an investigation.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 06:30 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
I mean, yeah, he sent similar stupid and vaguely threatening tweets during his first administration and never actually did anything, but this time is totally different!
He’s replaced his guard rails with orange cones. So yeah, it may well be different.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
@jon-nyc said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
Sorry they’re not Maga
2008 to the present day should have taught us a lot about the very legal, very accessible means by which anyone can compromise the first amendment. Focusing on Magas only is not only a waste of time but ludicrous in this context.
They’re now in charge so it seems quite relevant.
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 06:39 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
@jon-nyc said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
Sorry they’re not Maga
2008 to the present day should have taught us a lot about the very legal, very accessible means by which anyone can compromise the first amendment. Focusing on Magas only is not only a waste of time but ludicrous in this context.
They’re now in charge so it seems quite relevant.
By a 20th century definition of "in charge" I suppose, sure.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 06:48 last edited by
Im not really sure what you mean by that.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 07:00 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Maga’s war on the first amendment:
Im not really sure what you mean by that.
Who is in power has absolutely no bearing on the damage liberal wokes are able to cause to the first amendment. (And sure, Magas can too I suppose but the wokes have a massive advantage in that arena.)
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 07:02 last edited by
You are confused about the first amendment. It only applies to government. So you kind of have to control the government to violate it. I suppose some Democratic governors could violate it.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 08:26 last edited by
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
-
wrote on 18 Nov 2024, 14:47 last edited by
You know, this won't go anywhere.
At least as far as finding
guiltliability, that is.But, it might make it to court - and that means hiring lawyers, doing discovery, taking depositions etc.
Because, if there's nothing else we've learned in the last 4 years, it's that lawfare is a legitimate tactic. The process is the punishment.