US Presidential Election 2024

[Nearly Sane]

Hi Nearly,

No. I don't think freedom of speech includes incitement to violence or threats to individuals. That's already illegal, here and, as far as I know, in the US.

My allies in the fight for women's rights have a slogan: Let Them Speak. We don't want to silence our opponents, because unless you know what they think and can question it, you can't change minds. Bad arguments need to be exposed and countered (as has been happening for years on the 'Searching for God' thread). People don't stop thinking and believing things you don't agree with, or think are false, because you stop them from talking about it.

And yet Musk has been happy to support the dissemination of false information and threats on twitter which led to the riots in Southport.

Govts and societies draw lines on freedom of speech so it's not one side is for it, and one side against, rather it's that you think one side would draw the line closer to where you would than other people.

[Christine]

And yet Musk has been happy to support the dissemination of false information and threats on twitter which led to the riots in Southport.

Govts and societies draw lines on freedom of speech so it's not one side is for it, and one side against, rather it's that you think one side would draw the line closer to where you would than other people.

Musk provides the least censored social media platform available. If not for X I would be much less well informed. Inciting a riot is illegal, but telling lies is not, luckily for politicians and all the rest of us too. Individuals are responsible for what they say and do and we already have plenty of laws to hold people to account. It's a pity they aren't applied more fairly.

Of course you're right, I think there is a line to be drawn. I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss what constitutes iincitement to violence, or a credible threat, rather than articulation of an idea, or fair comment, or a joke.

Was, for example, Joe Biden inciting murder when he said, shortly before the first assassination attempt, "it's time to put Trump in a bull's-eye"? Was Maxine Waters (D) encouraging riots when she said "I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be"? Was Daniel Goldman (D) joking when he said Trump needed to be "eliminated"?

Left and right are meaningless labels now. I listen to what people say and look at what they do and decide whether I think they are a reasonable person with what I think is an adequate moral code. Since neither Harris nor Trump meet that standard, and there's no other option, I'd like the one who isn't threatening to curtail the 1st amendment (what happens in the US matters here) and who is now supported by people I don't think are inveterate liars.

[ad_orientem]

Thanks for your unsupported opinion, Jeremy.

We are on the brink of war. That's dangerous. The Democrats have been in power in the US for the last 3.5 years.

I don't think Trump is dangerous, though I don't like him. I do like Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and Elon Musk. Since realising how easily my previously trusted "progressive" sources of information lie, I've started listening to people I was told by them were well beyond the political pale; were unhinged conspiracy theorists. Turns out, many of them are reasonable people with intelligent and interesting things to say, and evidence to support their points of view.

Censorship of opinions you don't like and information you consider "misleading" is the hallmark of authoritarianism throughout history. If you can't beat your political opponents with arguments, you've lost, it's just a question of how long it takes for enough people to see through the charade and how many people have to suffer while history works itself out.

I don't think politicians can be trusted to decide what is and isn't true. Freedom of speech and association are the most important freedoms we have, from which all else flows. That's why I think Harris is more dangerous than Trump.

Gabbard, RFK and Musk (the latter particularly) love to think of themselves as freespeech heroes but in reality they're just useful idioits at best. We live in an era of disinformation, which they are doing their best to spread. Fighting it with conventional methods alone isn't enough.

[Roses]

Tr*mp is far more dangerous to you and to democracy than Harris. It really is laughable that anybody would seriously consider that she is the worst of the two of them.

Agreed.

[Christine]

Re the last two posts - do you expect me to say "Oh! Thanks. I never thought of it that way. I've completely revised my opinions now, thanks to your well argued and evidenced counter points."

Thanks to those of you who responded to a post it took me some time and consideration to compose with something more substantial and thought-provoking than "you're stupid".

 

[Nearly Sane]

Musk provides the least censored social media platform available. If not for X I would be much less well informed. Inciting a riot is illegal, but telling lies is not, luckily for politicians and all the rest of us too. Individuals are responsible for what they say and do and we already have plenty of laws to hold people to account. It's a pity they aren't applied more fairly.

Of course you're right, I think there is a line to be drawn. I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss what constitutes iincitement to violence, or a credible threat, rather than articulation of an idea, or fair comment, or a joke.

Was, for example, Joe Biden inciting murder when he said, shortly before the first assassination attempt, "it's time to put Trump in a bull's-eye"? Was Maxine Waters (D) encouraging riots when she said "I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be"? Was Daniel Goldman (D) joking when he said Trump needed to be "eliminated"?

Left and right are meaningless labels now. I listen to what people say and look at what they do and decide whether I think they are a reasonable person with what I think is an adequate moral code. Since neither Harris nor Trump meet that standard, and there's no other option, I'd like the one who isn't threatening to curtail the 1st amendment (what happens in the US matters here) and who is now supported by people I don't think are inveterate liars.

I don't think the first amendment is an absolute, and as you've agreed neither do you. If Musk allowed AI generated child porn on Twitter, I doubt you would be happy with that, and yet a fairly libertarian approach to the first amendment would allow that.

I remember lots of those who are now calling for 'free speech' supporting the locking up of people during the 2011 riots for comments on FB. I'm cynical about people portraying this as an easy either/or argument, and I'm unconvinced that allowing death threats as twitter sometimes did, and does is a social good.

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Nearly,

No. I don't think freedom of speech includes incitement to violence or threats to individuals. That's already illegal, here and, as far as I know, in the US.

Well, we know that Trump has already - to all intents and purposes - incited people to  violence, including the near murder of his own vice-president. You can cherry-pick his words on that infamous occasion to make him appear innocent, but at the very least, it was hours before he lifted a finger to do anything to stop it.

Kamala Harris has never spoken or acted in this way.

[Christine]

Well, we know that Trump has already - to all intents and purposes - incited people to  violence, including the near murder of his own vice-president. You can cherry-pick his words on that infamous occasion to make him appear innocent, but at the very least, it was hours before he lifted a finger to do anything to stop it.

Kamala Harris has never spoken or acted in this way.

Hi Dicky,

"To all intents and purposes" - so he didn't actually do it, then? Could you quote him?

I take it you don't think the rhetoric employed by elected Democrats, including President Joe Biden, unchallenged by VP Harris, had anything to do with one actual and one foiled attempt on Trump's life? She hasn't "incited violence", but she has said Trump is an existential threat to American democracy. And he's been shot at.

[ad_orientem]

Hi Dicky,

"To all intents and purposes" - so he didn't actually do it, then? Could you quote him?

I take it you don't think the rhetoric employed by elected Democrats, including President Joe Biden, unchallenged by VP Harris, had anything to do with one actual and one foiled attempt on Trump's life? She hasn't "incited violence", but she has said Trump is an existential threat to American democracy. And he's been shot at.

Err, he is.

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Dicky,

"To all intents and purposes" - so he didn't actually do it, then? Could you quote him?

I take it you don't think the rhetoric employed by elected Democrats, including President Joe Biden, unchallenged by VP Harris, had anything to do with one actual and one foiled attempt on Trump's life? She hasn't "incited violence", but she has said Trump is an existential threat to American democracy. And he's been shot at.

Hello Christine
When you stand up before a howling mob of anarchists quite obviously intent on violence, and use the word "fight", are we to expect they're going to take it as a metaphor? Trump has certainly used the word "fight" many times since, and I don't suppose he cares a damn whether his supporters take it metaphorically or not (always supposing the illiterate yob knows what a metaphor is).
I would have thought, however, that anyone with two brain cells would realise that Biden's "bullseye" comment was a metaphor. I  don't think he referred to Trump's potential assassin as "very special", as Trump himself referred to his 'Proud Boys' and other 'enthusiasts'.

[Maeght]

Thanks for your unsupported opinion, Jeremy.

We are on the brink of war. That's dangerous. The Democrats have been in power in the US for the last 3.5 years.

I don't think Trump is dangerous, though I don't like him. I do like Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and Elon Musk. Since realising how easily my previously trusted "progressive" sources of information lie, I've started listening to people I was told by them were well beyond the political pale; were unhinged conspiracy theorists. Turns out, many of them are reasonable people with intelligent and interesting things to say, and evidence to support their points of view.

Censorship of opinions you don't like and information you consider "misleading" is the hallmark of authoritarianism throughout history. If you can't beat your political opponents with arguments, you've lost, it's just a question of how long it takes for enough people to see through the charade and how many people have to suffer while history works itself out.

I don't think politicians can be trusted to decide what is and isn't true. Freedom of speech and association are the most important freedoms we have, from which all else flows. That's why I think Harris is more dangerous than Trump.

MAGA don't want free speech for everyone though do they?

[Aruntraveller]

Hi Christine - I am saddened to read your posts. If you truly think that Trump is somehow better for the world than other options then I think that little I will say will convince you otherwise.

You rightly denounce the Democrats for failing to codify the outcome of Roe v. Wade but then offer support for the man, who by packing the Supreme Court with right-wing judges, enabled the overturning of Roe v. Wade and therefore making the lives of many American women much, much harder.

I'm sorry to tell you that Trump is not on the side of women unless he is grabbing them by the pussy. The fact that the right generally, and Trump in particular, chime with you on one issue does not make them the panacea for all our ills.

As for Musk, I suggest trying going onto Twitter now and supporting gay rights. Good luck. I'll provide screenshots later if necessary. It is a cesspit of Musk's creation, although to be fair, it was quite a way down that path before he took it over. It is nothing but a vast echo chamber for those who feel disenfranchised or those who are already morally bankrupt, Musk being the foremost example of the latter category.

[Christine]

Hello Christine
When you stand up before a howling mob of anarchists quite obviously intent on violence, and use the word "fight", are we to expect they're going to take it as a metaphor? Trump has certainly used the word "fight" many times since, and I don't suppose he cares a damn whether his supporters take it metaphorically or not (always supposing the illerate yob knows what a metaphor is).
I would have thought, however, that anyone with two brain cells would realise that Biden's "bullseye" comment was a metaphor. I  don't think he referred to Trump's potential assassin as "very special", as Trump himself referred to his 'Proud Boys' and other 'enthusiasts'.

Kamala Harris on the 2020 BLM riots (19 dead): “nothing we have achieved in this country has come without a fight”.

Trump is not, in my opinion, a uniquely dangerous politician.

Just to clarify, if I had a vote, and if Harris hadn't replaced Biden, and if RFK Jr was on the ballot, I would have voted for him.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to clarify, if I had a vote, and if Harris hadn't replaced Biden, and if RFK Jr was on the ballot, I would have voted for him.

Sorry can you clarify - in your double hypothetical scenario, would you have voted for Biden, or voted for RFK?

But in the real world - the choice is Trump or Harris. I'm very clear - I'd vote Harris 100%. How about you?

[Christine]

Hi Christine - I am saddened to read your posts. If you truly think that Trump is somehow better for the world than other options then I think that little I will say will convince you otherwise.

You rightly denounce the Democrats for failing to codify the outcome of Roe v. Wade but then offer support for the man, who by packing the Supreme Court with right-wing judges, enabled the overturning of Roe v. Wade and therefore making the lives of many American women much, much harder.

I'm sorry to tell you that Trump is not on the side of women unless he is grabbing them by the pussy. The fact that the right generally, and Trump in particular, chime with you on one issue does not make them the panacea for all our ills.

As for Musk, I suggest trying going onto Twitter now and supporting gay rights. Good luck. I'll provide screenshots later if necessary. It is a cesspit of Musk's creation, although to be fair, it was quite a way down that path before he took it over. It is nothing but a vast echo chamber for those who feel disenfranchised or those who are already morally bankrupt, Musk being the foremost example of the latter category.

Hi Aruntraveller,

I follow a lot of gay people on X because they are involved in the same fight for reality that I am. I say again that stopping people from articulating ideas and beliefs that you find offensive, upsetting or think are mistaken doesn't make those ideas go away. I would prefer that nobody was homophobic, racist or misogynistic, but some people are, and I want to know who they are.

I never at any point suggested that anybody or any political ideology was a panacea. Liberal principles of free speech, association and equality before the law aren't an ideology, they are a framework. Compromises to those principles should be discussed explicitly and agreed democratically. I don't think John Stuart Mill was right wing.

At this point I think Trump as president of the US is less of a danger to western democracy than Harris. Both sides are bad for women.

Minnesota:

https://reduxx.info/exclusive-five-male-inmates-transferred-to-minnesota-womens-prison-including-two-convicted-pedophiles/

California:

https://reduxx.info/trans-identified-male-convicted-of-murdering-his-wife-after-she-attempted-to-divorce-him-now-housed-in-california-womens-prison/

Illinois:

https://reduxx.info/transgender-pedophile-who-sexually-assaulted-his-children-now-being-held-at-illinois-womens-prison/

[Christine]

Sorry can you clarify - in your double hypothetical scenario, would you have voted for Biden, or voted for RFK?

But in the real world - the choice is Trump or Harris. I'm very clear - I'd vote Harris 100%. How about you?

Sorry for my lack of clairity - it's a treble hypothetical. I've said (more than once) I'd vote for Trump. If Biden hadn't been binned I understand that RFK Jr would have been on the ballot, and I like him better than either of them, but really, it doesn't matter.

[SteveH]

Sorry for my lack of clairity - it's a treble hypothetical. I've said (more than once) I'd vote for Trump. If Biden hadn't been binned I understand that RFK Jr would have been on the ballot, and I like him better than either of them, but really, it doesn't matter.

RFK jr is a conspiracy nut and vaccine denier, which makes him more dangerous than either of the other two!

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry for my lack of clairity - it's a treble hypothetical. I've said (more than once) I'd vote for Trump. If Biden hadn't been binned I understand that RFK Jr would have been on the ballot, and I like him better than either of them, but really, it doesn't matter.

Just to note RFK Jnr will still be on the ballot in certain states, and was never going to be on the ballot in all states.

[Aruntraveller]

I follow a lot of gay people on X because they are involved in the same fight for reality that I am. I say again that stopping people from articulating ideas and beliefs that you find offensive, upsetting or think are mistaken doesn't make those ideas go away. I would prefer that nobody was homophobic, racist or misogynistic, but some people are, and I want to know who they are.

And I would suggest providing a space that is an echo chamber is amplifying and increasing the hatred for groups. It might help you identify them, but just exactly can you then do about it?

[ad_orientem]

At this point I think Trump as president of the US is less of a danger to western democracy than Harris.

On the contrary, I would argue. With his admiration and eagerness to appease authoritarian leaders around the world (and, perhaps, in some of their pockets), he poses a direct threat to western democracy.

[Aruntraveller]

Liberal principles of free speech, association and equality before the law aren't an ideology, they are a framework.

I completely agree. However, Twitter, FB and the like, that run complicated algorithms to push certain ideologies at you are the complete opposite of free speech.

My FB timeline has been completely taken over by RW groups from America who I have nothing in common with.
Why is this happening?

Because I've challenged the odd post in the past?

Because they've identified me as someone who is susceptible to blatant propoganda?

I really don't know.

The net effect is to make me withdraw from FB. I'm sure Zuckerberg can stand the loss but I won't be using FB for anything other than pics of fluffy kittens and the like. The same goes for Twitter.

Anyone who thinks these platforms in some way uphold free speech is sadly mistaken. They uphold the interests of the billionnaire owners. Nothing more.

[ad_orientem]

I completely agree. However, Twitter, FB and the like, that run complicated algorithms to push certain ideologies at you are the complete opposite of free speech.

My FB timeline has been completely taken over by RW groups from America who I have nothing in common with.
Why is this happening?

Because I've challenged the odd post in the past?

Because they've identified me as someone who is susceptible to blatant propoganda?

I really don't know.

The net effect is to make me withdraw from FB. I'm sure Zuckerberg can stand the loss but I won't be using FB for anything other than pics of fluffy kittens and the like. The same goes for Twitter.

Anyone who thinks these platforms in some way uphold free speech is sadly mistaken. They uphold the interests of the billionnaire owners. Nothing more.

Musk backers for Twitter are Saudis and russians. That alone should ring alarm bells.

[Roses]

I closed both my FB and Twitter accounts a while ago. The FB account didn't seem as secure as I would wish it to be, when Musk took over Twitter it gave me the creeps!

[jeremyp]

Thanks for your unsupported opinion, Jeremy.

It's not unsupported.

Do you not remember 6th January 2021? Trump incited a load of supporters to try to overthrow due process.

Do you not remember his presidency where he stuffed the courts including the Supreme Court with Republican shills?

Do you not remember his speeches this time around where he told Christians that if he won, they'd never need to vote again.

 Wake up!

We are on the brink of war.

No we aren't.

The Democrats have been in power in the US for the last 3.5 years.

And overall they have done a good job.

I don't think Trump is dangerous, though I don't like him. I do like Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and Elon Musk. Since realising how easily my previously trusted "progressive" sources of information lie, I've started listening to people I was told by them were well beyond the political pale; were unhinged conspiracy theorists. Turns out, many of them are reasonable people with intelligent and interesting things to say, and evidence to support their points of view.

I can't speak for Tulsi Gabbard and RFK but Elon Musk only lies when his lips are moving. Elon Musk is a con man. You can't trust him to look out for anybody except Elon Musk.

Censorship of opinions you don't like

You mean like the way Musk censors opinions he doesn't like.

You need to take off your rose tinted spectacles. The people you have listed are only out for themselves. They don't care about you or anybody else.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not unsupported.

Do you not remember 6th January 2021? Trump incited a load of supporters to try to overthrow due process.

Do you not remember his presidency where he stuffed the courts including the Supreme Court with Republican shills?

Do you not remember his speeches this time around where he told Christians that if he won, they'd never need to vote again.

 Wake up!
No we aren't.

And overall they have done a good job.

I can't speak for Tulsi Gabbard and RFK but Elon Musk only lies when his lips are moving. Elon Musk is a con man. You can't trust him to look out for anybody except Elon Musk.
You mean like the way Musk censors opinions he doesn't like.

You need to take off your rose tinted spectacles. The people you have listed are only out for themselves. They don't care about you or anybody else.

I agree with a lot of this but the Supreme Court stuff is common to both parties in recent times.

And I'm not convinced that the telling Christians they only need to vote once is really about getting rid of voting. I think he was trying to say that he would sort everything.