Will America become socialist now that Biden has basically won?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StudentMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Care to take a shot at that point, or just to soliloquize on the universal lack of ability to read and interpret the nuance in discourse which doesn’t exist in any case?
Click to expand...
So the fact that I’ve been called a Marxist because I said you know capitalism has faults doesn’t count for anything? Or that I was accused of supporting Trump because I criticized Biden?
Click to expand...
Could you show where I called you a Marxist?

And I don’t believe I ever accused you of supporting Trump.

You did use my posts as a jumping stone for criticizing the lack of nuance in discourse as if my post exemplified that lack.
StudentMI said:
Unfortunately in today’s America there is no nuance left. If one criticizes Biden you’re a Trump fan.if you criticize Trump you’re a Marxist. That’s the level of discourse.
Click to expand...
Yet here you are burdening me with the responsibility for stuff that happened to you that I had no part in.
 
HarryStotle said:
Could you show where I called you a Marxist?

And I don’t believe I ever accused you of supporting Trump.
Click to expand...
Did I say you did it?
HarryStotle said:
You did use my posts as a jumping stone for criticizing the lack of nuance in discourse as if my post exemplified that lack.
Click to expand...
Because they exemplified a lack of nuance.
HarryStotle said:
Yet here you are burdening me with the responsibility for stuff that happened to you that I had no part in.
Click to expand...
Uh huh.
 
Sarcelle said:
Whatever.

So you think I’m manipulative.

Think what you want of me.
Click to expand...
One swallow does not a summer make. One hair does not make a beard. The fact that you may have attempted to manipulate someone’s thinking once without awareness does not make you manipulative.

It is a subtle and nuanced distinction, but since we happen to be discussing nuance it needs to be stated.
 
StudentMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Kind of manipulative of you, no?
Click to expand...
Sorry we were talking about nuance?
Click to expand...
It was a question not a conclusion. Thesis - antithesis. I need not be tethered to either. That is called philosophizing on a subject. Presenting a case for something - even what the presenter doesn’t happen to believe - used to be integral to a fair and open discussion

You are invited to dispute or present a case that it isn’t manipulative and I am wide open to hearing it.

That is how discourse happens. Hence the question mark indicating it is open to discussion and resolve.

See the nuance?
 
Last edited:
With the Senate, House and Supreme Court being either very split or firmly conservative, we’ll be alright. Anything massive that Biden or Harris try to move will be shot down sooner or later.
 
StudentMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
See the nuance?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. I also see how you yourself were not very nuanced in bringing in Democrats because of a comment about crony capitalism.
Click to expand...
So it isn’t a fact that the great proportion of large corporations - those cited as being the epitome of crony capitalism in the US by @Sarcelle - are NOT large contributors to the Democrat Party? How much did Bloomberg, for example, invest in Democrat causes and vote solicitation?

Does relevance and evidence play a part in discussion, or not?
 
Last edited:
Oh you’ll get no argument from me about the Democratic party. I’ve posted on here about it before. But we both know what you’re doing.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. Did you read the article Sarcelle posted?
 
StudentMI said:
Oh you’ll get no argument from me about the Democratic party. I’ve posted on here about it before. But we both know what you’re doing.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. Did you read the article Sarcelle posted?
Click to expand...
I’ll get to the article but I am late for a beard trim. I’ll need to swallow my breakfast real quick.
 
openmind77 said:
40.png
johnz123:
Kamala Harris is the one who concerns me, not Biden. She’s farther left than Bernie Sanders. And she is very hostile to religious liberty. Will America become socialist under the Biden Harris administration? What do you think?
Click to expand...
What makes you think that Harris is further to the left than Bernie Sanders? In fact, she was a pretty tough prosecutor and a moderate on other issues.
Click to expand...
There was an independent report (referenced by the moderator during the Vice Presidential debate) that indicated that Kamala Harris (based on co sponsorship of bills, votes, bills introduced, etc) was the furthest left Senator in the Senate.

 
Last edited:
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
When Trump got elected, I hoped he’d appoint conservative judges.
And he did
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. That was one of the main reasons I voted for him, and he didn’t disappoint. Biden’s White House is going to have plenty of hoops to jump through.
 
johnz123 said:
She’s farther left than Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true and is a common inflammatory statement used to drum up fear. How ‘right or left’ someone is, is a measure of ideology not partisanship. Her voting record could be 100% Democrat and Bernie Sanders could be 40% Democrat, that does not make her ‘more left’ or ‘more liberal’ than Bernie Sanders.

This is the classic conflating of partisanship and ideology which is simply untrue.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think i understand your answer. Forecasting is not manipulative. It is simply applying common sense to the matter at hand. I may be right, or I may be wrong. Only time will tell.
 
I am not suggesting that I support their censorship.

One more example of the law of unintended consequences, when the legislature decided how the high tech would be treated.

In a certain sense, the high tech means of communication has become like a public utility. The “phone companies” do not censor “phone calls”, but phone calls are not subject to the view of any and every person having access to the comments, either between individuals, or publicly made.

It will be interesting to watch any further issues of regulation. Pandora’s box seems to have lost its lid.
 
This is a far different thing from impacting our Bill of Rights.

A media company owns a platform. The users of that platform may pay to use that platform (thinking of Go Daddy for websites) or they may be allowed free use that is ad revenue supported (Catholic Answers Forums, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) When one hits that “Terms of Service” acceptance button, one actually agrees to the, well, terms of service. In that TOS is language that the TOS may be changed or amended, and there are times when one receives notice of updated TOS on a platform.

It is no violation of free speech to have rules about what can be said on the platform you own. If you do not like the TOS, find another place.

Think of it as if you own a sign company with large billboards. You are not required to accept ads that violate your terms of service. Or you run a magazine, you have editorial oversight for what gets printed. Book publishing houses are not required to print every book that is submitted.
 
Then, most of America needs to be educated about critical thinking, the difference between news and commentary, and how to use primary sources to fact check.
 
StudentMI said:
By private companies abridging no one’s right of freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
The companies are publicly traded companies and have in effect replaced a number of news media as well as email and the telephone in terms of people transmitting their opinions. Imply dismissing the issue as “private companies” ignores that they have become the single medium of people expressing opinions and ideas, a matter that originally was provided by the forum of news papiers, and to an extent (through ads), television.

Twitter and Facebook as well as other internet means of communicating ideas and thoughts are the primary means used to communicate; and the fact that they are a publicly traded company rather than a government owned public utility does not mean they are not censoring ideas and comments. They most clearly are censoring, and the fact that neither the courts nor the federal government have identified them as publishers does not mean that they do not, in fact, act as publishers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top