2A advocates should pray for a full recovery

[LWC55]

I'm not trying to single out Trump with that last statement I'm saying that there has been so much misinformation lately that I think folks are willing to now limit speech, which net net I think is a bad thing.

I guess I will never understand defending censorship because of "so much misinformation". Tyrants who censor always do it under the guise that they are preventing "misinformation" from getting into the hands of the public. Freedom of speech means we the people are able to share all of the information...right and wrong, and make our own assessments. Can't believe those who would have fought to the death for this issue a few years ago are now ok with and even support censorship of "misinformation". Clown world.

Edit: I know you are not supporting censorship. Just quoting the "so much misinformation".

 

[Dougfirtree]

I knew better. I shall retreat to some thread about bullets.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I guess I will never understand defending censorship because of "so much misinformation". Tyrants who censor always do it under the guise that they are preventing "misinformation" from getting into the hands of the public. Freedom of speech means we the people are able to share all of the information...right and wrong, and make our own assessments. Can't believe those who would have fought to the death for this issue a few years ago are now ok with and even support censorship of "misinformation". Clown world.

Edit: I know you are not supporting censorship. Just quoting the "so much misinformation".

I get what your saying, I too think it’s wild we arrived at this point in US history.

 

[Sytes]

I get what your saying, I too think it’s wild we arrived at this point in US history.

Not new, really. For us... we're seeing extreme division and intentional misinformation.

Consider our Civil War that caused more American deaths than the total combination of American lives lost throughout American wars following. 620,000 deaths! Consider our population then and now.

From a Time Magazine article:

"During the Civil War, Americans furiously sifted false from true during a time of extreme partisan divisions, even among those who agreed on the need to abolish slavery. They even had their own version of the Internet—the telegraph—which had exposed such stark partisan divisions in the country, its inventor Samuel Morse founded an organization to rebuild national unity. Looking at that time, it’s possible to identify key lessons for navigating this 2020 election season when accusations and false brags about the candidates abound."

Their telegraph, our internet. Media shared at that time and population professed by those who soap boxed their opinions upon others.

Amazing.

Good read, if interested:

Misinformation Was a Problem During the Civil War, Too

While the platforms that help today’s untruths snowball and spread are often decidedly modern, the problem itself is nothing new

time.com

 

[VikingsGuy]

Agreed, though a component of that is the common carrier discussion that we have beaten to death over and over again. The other component is what I'm going to call "boy who cried wolf" if someone flagrantly lies over and over again that is going to have an effect and implications down the road when they say something credible.

I'm not trying to single out Trump with that last statement I'm saying that there has been so much misinformation lately that I think folks are willing to now limit speech, which net net I think is a bad thing.

So yes I agree with you that is what is happening, but it's kinda a chicken or the egg thing in my mind.

At risk of tanking my own thread I offer the following:

Both sides have good and bad. Political gamesmanship and nastiness by both sides are as old as the union. Until 2016 it was not good, but hardly outside the historical range of experience.

And then Trump. He was/is a unique figure. From a policy standpoint, he pushed some very standard GOP items - tax cuts, reduced regulation, school choice, and others. Really no different than if Gov. Kaisich had won for the GOP. He added to the GOP agenda a skepticism around international trade and affairs that tended to isolationism and an anti-immigration edge - which while not new to US politics or even the GOP, was a big departure for the GOP of the preceding 60 years. He also pushed an affinity for the displaced blue-collar workers - voters once well settled in the DEM party (the proverbial Reagan Republicans), but ignored by them in a more recent push towards progressive/socialist policy in urban spaces. A number of conservative scholars had pointed out since 2000 that this move away from "rural values" by DEM party presented an opportunity for the GOP , but Trump was the first to push it to the front of his agenda. He galvanized their complaints and fears and built a strong core of support in a group of voters largely left behind by the country-club GOP and the progressive urban left.

If this was all there was to discuss Trump might have gone down in history as a Teddy Roosevelt-type character - a Republican who pushed against the wealthy elite at the end of the first Gilded era (some see strong parallels to today). But that is not all there is to discuss.

Trump seems oddly wired to live full-time in a reality TV show. Where "truth" itself is a fiction. In addition, he never let go of his somewhat erratic burn all the bridges, deeply personal nastiness he was known for in the business world. While, in most cases, this personality flaw would have disqualified him from a serious political run, it hit a chord with rural/working class voters who were tired of feeling talked down to by the percieved "elite" (left and right). They cheered his crassness as it exercised long felt grievances and disappointments - the feeling of being looked down upon by the very nation "they built."

In turn, the east coast left - who were used to being untouchable cultural bullies lost their sh*t - they were not used to being treated this way even by their "enemies". His every excess was matched with equal vitriol. The nation took sides in a way it hadn't since Vietnam.

If Trump could have moderated his worst tendancies a bit - enough to seem even-keeled by moderate GOP and independents I fully expect he would have won handily against Biden, but he seems unable to control his own worst impulses. An issue his own son-in-law acknowledged by locking him out of his own twitter account the month before the 2016 election.

And then we went from a mess to a disaster. Rather than having the self-awareness that his own extreme behavior cost him an election that was his to lose, he went deep down the conspiracy hole. And he damaged this democracy in a way that history will not forgive.

So - it is now my sincere hope that each party can find something resembling a bridge builder to run in 2024 - we need it.

To end this reflection I add that I find great grace and wisdom in 90% of Americans - left and right, rural and urban, conservative and "socialist" - but I reject the most fervent and hateful 5% on each the far left and the far right and am extremely saddened by the power they seem to have over the 90% in 2022. This is not theoretical, for me the last 6 years have placed great stress on many important relationships and friendships on both sides of the divide - needlessly so in my opinion, because outside of the drum beats of the 10% extremist we have so very much in common.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Hey bro I voted against Trump in the republican primary and then against Biden in the democratic primary 4 years later.

Please show me evidence of your attendance at pre-primary precinct meetings in an eerie Kavanaugh-like illustrated day-timer.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Please show me evidence of your attendance at pre-primary precinct meetings in an eerie Kavanaugh-like illustrated day-timer.

We Drank BEER, I liked BEER, I still like BEER... leave me alone...

 

[VikingsGuy]

We Drank BEER, I liked BEER, I still like BEER... leave me alone...

See - while winding (like any good discussion) we are full circle and back to SCOTUS

 

[VikingsGuy]

Now Sir, while I hold no legal title or position like yourself, I did not formulate my opinion based on mere simpleton conjecture alone. While my opinions were not supported by the majority of the SCOTUS on that day, as you pointed out, they most certainly have merit and were discussed and supported by members of the court.

In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens declared that the court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government." He argued that the court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He added: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."

So while you may not like my opinion, and you can clearly call me wrong, since in fact, the court ruled against it. It is not some fantasy offer up by an eastern Washington crack pot (at least not only).

I absolutely see the case for both sides, and like all have one I find more compelling. I was not pushing back on an opposing position, but rather the dismissive approach that suggests there is no other reasonable side and this was simply about money and not speech - which while supported by one line of argument, is blind to the reasonable points of the other side (in this case the controlling side).

As for E. Wash crack pot - I would never use such pejorative terms in reference to you -- unless we are talking D1A football - GO BISON!

 

[Dougfirtree]

At risk of tanking my own thread I offer the following:

Both sides have good and bad. Political gamesmanship and nastiness by both sides are as old as the union. Until 2016 it was not good, but hardly outside the historical range of experience.

And then Trump. He was/is a unique figure. From a policy standpoint, he pushed some very standard GOP items - tax cuts, reduced regulation, school choice, and others. Really no different than if Gov. Kaisich had won for the GOP. He added to the GOP agenda a skepticism around international trade and affairs that tended to isolationism and an anti-immigration edge - which while not new to US politics or even the GOP, was a big departure for the GOP of the preceding 60 years. He also pushed an affinity for the displaced blue-collar workers - voters once well settled in the DEM party (the proverbial Reagan Republicans), but ignored by them in a more recent push towards progressive/socialist policy in urban spaces. A number of conservative scholars had pointed out since 2000 that this move away from "rural values" by DEM party presented an opportunity for the GOP , but Trump was the first to push it to the front of his agenda. He galvanized their complaints and fears and built a strong core of support in a group of voters largely left behind by the country-club GOP and the progressive urban left.

If this was all there was to discuss Trump might have gone down in history as a Teddy Roosevelt-type character - a Republican who pushed against the wealthy elite at the end of the first Gilded era (some see strong parallels to today). But that is not all there is to discuss.

Trump seems oddly wired to live full-time in a reality TV show. Where "truth" itself is a fiction. In addition, he never let go of his somewhat erratic burn all the bridges, deeply personal nastiness he was known for in the business world. While, in most cases, this personality flaw would have disqualified him from a serious political run, it hit a chord with rural/working class voters who were tired of feeling talked down to by the percieved "elite" (left and right). They cheered his crassness as it exercised long felt grievances and disappointments - the feeling of being looked down upon by the very nation "they built."

In turn, the east coast left - who were used to being untouchable cultural bullies lost their sh*t - they were not used to being treated this way even by their "enemies". His every excess was matched with equal vitriol. The nation took sides in a way it hadn't since Vietnam.

If Trump could have moderated his worst tendancies a bit - enough to seem even-keeled by moderate GOP and independents I fully expect he would have won handily against Biden, but he seems unable to control his own worst impulses. An issue his own son-in-law acknowledged by locking him out of his own twitter account the month before the 2016 election.

And then we went from a mess to a disaster. Rather than having the self-awareness that his own extreme behavior cost him an election that was his to lose, he went deep down the conspiracy hole. And he damaged this democracy in a way that history will not forgive.

So - it is now my sincere hope that each party can find something resembling a bridge builder to run in 2024 - we need it.

To end this reflection I add that I find great grace and wisdom in 90% of Americans - left and right, rural and urban, conservative and "socialist" - but I reject the most fervent and hateful 5% on each the far left and the far right and am extremely saddened by the power they seem to have over the 90% in 2022. This is not theoretical, for me the last 6 years have placed great stress on many important relationships and friendships on both sides of the divide - needlessly so in my opinion, because outside of the drum beats of the 10% extremist we have so very much in common.

 

[Irrelevant]

I absolutely see the case for both sides, and like all have one I find more compelling.

Ah kind Sir, but that is an attempt to rewrite the history of this thread, for the above statement is clearly an expression of an opinion that acknowledges the validity of counter opinions.

He said it was not about free speech. But it was.

But arguing CU is not about free speech is like arguing Heller is not about gun ownership and Roe is not about abortion.

While these statements are both declarative and dismissive of counter arguments; a clear attempt to frame another's opinion as so blatantly irrelevant to the subject at hand as to not warrant further consideration.


I enjoy a debate as much as the next, and while I appreciate the substance of the rewrite, I cannot let it stand.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Ah kind Sir, but that is an attempt to rewrite the history of this thread, for the above statement is clearly an expression of an opinion that acknowledges the validity of counter opinions.


While these statements are both declarative and dismissive of counter arguments; a clear attempt to frame another's opinion as so blatantly irrelevant to the subject at hand as to not warrant further consideration.


I enjoy a debate as much as the next, and while I appreciate the substance of the rewrite, I cannot let it stand.

Now I am confused. Are you saying the question raised in CU is not one of wrestling with the boundaries of free speech and the role/effect $$ has on exercise of the same in the political sphere? Are you saying calling CU a free speech case is itself some inherently flawed/biased label?

If so they we will just have to agree to disagree. If you are not then you have lost me with this post.

Best regards.

 

[Straight Arrow]

you have lost me with this post.

What the heck is CU? (Citizens United?)

 

[Irrelevant]

Now I am confused. Are you saying the question raised in CU is not one of wrestling with the boundaries of free speech and the role/effect $$ has on exercise of the same in the political sphere? Are you saying calling CU a free speech case is itself some inherently flawed/biased label?

If so they we will just have to agree to disagree. If you are not then you have lost me with this post.

Best regards.

I was trying to politely call your first comment a BS attempt to bully through an actual discussion by being dismissive the any logical counter arguments. Yes, 5 of the 9 justices said it was about free speech. But 4 of the 9 were able to view the ramifications of such a narrow view and correctly see that doing so would allow the wealthy via their corporations to buy their way through our democracy. Free speech is not without it's restrictions, and they (the dissenters) clearly believed that in this case some restriction would better serve our greater democracy. They lost by a single vote, one person. That is not a dismissive position.

And while you may claim that this ruling shows the bleeding heart liberals have reversed course and are now anti-free speech and state pro-censorship. I think this specific ruling more accurately expresses the view that in the conservative world everything is for sale.

But yes, in the end, we'll have to agree to disagree. Just as the justices did.

 

[RobertD]

I think this specific ruling more accurately expresses the view that in the conservative world everything is for sale.

What do you think a reversal of the ruling would do? What portion of "everything" would no longer be "for sale"? Serious q, not sarcasm.

One more to add, why is the majority view on CU narrow? This case is very much a free speech issue and drew on precedent from other 1A cases. The actual details of CU as a case were more concerned with speech/censorship than campaign finance.

 

[VikingsGuy]

What do you think a reversal of the ruling would do? What portion of "everything" would no longer be "for sale"?

I've always said, as long as the same rules apply to NGOs, public employees groups, and all unions -- and union membership is entirely voluntary -- I am fairly open to a range of discussions to address current election issues. But that is not the speech they wish to regulate . . .

It will be interesting to watch this issue as we move forward as the two parties haven't updated to current realities - in the 80s the DEM had the press and the GOP had the money and the corporations. Now with cable news and unlimited internet platforms both sides have plenty of press and with the drifting left of most large corporations and the neuvo wealthy, the DEMS actually have more $$ in their coffers than the GOP - maybe time for them to switch seats on this issue.

Some day I may start a thread to discuss election $$ - and why in a nation of 350 million - to regulate the $$ is to regulate the speech (so the 5 right of center judges are onto something) - and also how campaign controls and term limits both dramatically boost the power of the existing entrenched govt stakeholders, statists and bureaucrats - but for now I am passing on more CU discussion on this thread. Take care all.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Montana's history shows how powerful corporate interests can harm democracy.

The Anaconda Company at one time owned most of the major newspapers in the state. They decided what news was worthy of being read by most Montanans. The company dominated the state's politics.

Many of the resulting reforms in laws and the state's constitution were in part a backlash to the dominance of the Anaconda Company. One of those was restrictions on corporate spending on political campaigns. Of course it was swept aside with the Citizen's United ruling.

There will be increasing influence from well moneyed interests for the foreseeable future. It will take longer, I suspect, than my lifetime before enough citizens have had a belly full and do anything about it.

Consider how much influence the Wilkes brothers have over the direction on FWP among other things. You can count on it becoming worse...or better depending on how you see it.

With almost unlimited "press" and a significant move relatively to the left by major corporations and the wealthy, the implicit conflict of interest of strong public employee unions and institutionalized bureaucracies are the more modern threat to democracy - but we do need to be vigilant in a democracy to all forms of abuse.

 

[406dn]

With almost unlimited "press" and a significant move relatively to the left by major corporations and the wealthy, the implicit conflict of interest of strong public employee unions and institutionalized bureaucracies are the more modern threat to democracy - but we do need to be vigilant in a democracy to all forms of abuse.

If that works for you go for it, sounds far fetched to me. I can assure you the corporation I retired from does not lean left...at all. After all Trump named the CEO his first Sec. of State.

Most corporations do their level best to keep unions out of their workforce, hardly left leaning. Most corporations lobby extensively to reduce or modify regulations, hardly left leaning. I do like the suggestion that public employee unions yield the clout of major corporations, that's quite a stretch.

If you want to see a modern threat to democracy, a review of the last presidential election aftermath is more relevant.

 

[RobertD]

I do like the suggestion that public employee unions yield the clout of major corporations, that's quite a stretch.

Police unions and teachers' unions: "Am I a joke to you?"

 

[Gulf of America]

As a public employee in Montana (who doesn't happen to be in a union), I have to say that I see a lot of value in strong public unions. The legislature sets FTE numbers and pay rates, which really takes away the ability of any employee to petition for higher wages. I see the argument that making people hard to fire results in lazy employees, but the pay structure set by the state also eliminates any incentive to over-perform.