Crap Throwing Clavin Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: No. Which is why I don't get why people who know better, people who know and have seen how far faith in the media has fallen in the eyes of the everyman, thinks this full court press for Kamala is somehow indicative of real strength of her campaign. If anything, it's proof of how weak she is - and the media knows it. You mean the same people who believed for three and a half years that Biden was cogent and on the ball because they were told so...then switch their opinion in a few weeks, because they were told...who now think Kamala is some sort of visionary leader, because they're being told... These people know better? Other thing about the "Nazi" narrative. Plenty of psychological studies available that show that the majority of people are "followers," not independent thinkers. These progressives, "fighting" against "Nazism," are such blind, slavish followers that they would have unquestioningly supported Kristallnacht and putting Jews in camps in 1938. No hyperbole...American progressives scare the living shit out of me. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 1 hour ago, Ann said: I don't think X is going to comply: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 Mean tweets for the win! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 Again - the hype is NOT backed by any metric on the ground. None. It's not gaslighting, it's not lying, it's blatant propaganda built on sand. It will not hold. 1 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 24 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: You mean the same people who believed for three and a half years that Biden was cogent and on the ball because they were told so...then switch their opinion in a few weeks, because they were told...who now think Kamala is some sort of visionary leader, because they're being told... These people know better? Other thing about the "Nazi" narrative. Plenty of psychological studies available that show that the majority of people are "followers," not independent thinkers. These progressives, "fighting" against "Nazism," are such blind, slavish followers that they would have unquestioningly supported Kristallnacht and putting Jews in camps in 1938. No hyperbole...American progressives scare the living shit out of me. No, I'm talking about centrists and MAGA types. They're the ones freaking out right now because the media is telling them Harris is winning. She isn't. By any metric other than fawning MSM articles which are worth less than the US dollar at this point. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Clavin Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 2 minutes ago, Ann said: I don't think X is going to comply: Twitter is an international company, and is required to conform to the laws of the countries it does business in, including the EU. That's not unprecedented - Google has had to deal with the same legal issues w/r/t China. Of course, Musk can simply decide to not do business in the EU, and block all Twitter access from there. Wouldn't be surprised if he did. The bigger issue with that, though? The EU is arguing that the policy statements of a US Presidential candidate are "hate speech." Think on what that means in terms of 1) election interference, and 2) foreign relations should Trump win. That's a frightening prospect - the EU having a legal basis, even requirement under EU regulation and law, to interfere in US elections and break off relations should the result not go their way. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 1 minute ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: The bigger issue with that, though? The EU is arguing that the policy statements of a US Presidential candidate are "hate speech." Think on what that means in terms of 1) election interference, and 2) foreign relations should Trump win. That's a frightening prospect - the EU having a legal basis, even requirement under EU regulation and law, to interfere in US elections and break off relations should the result not go their way. That is the bigger point. Election interference comes in all forms. This is from the un-elected officials in the EU. What could happen is Musk blocks this interview in the EU. What should happen is the EU countries block it. None of those solutions reflect well on the EU. The request does not reflect well on the EU. How will EU relations with the US go if Trump is (re) elected? Note: I do not agree with your assessment that the EU has a requirement or legal basis to interfere. Nothing close to "hate speech" has been said. This is preemptive, and AFAIK the law is reactive. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 7 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: Twitter is an international company, and is required to conform to the laws of the countries it does business in, including the EU. That's not unprecedented - Google has had to deal with the same legal issues w/r/t China. Of course, Musk can simply decide to not do business in the EU, and block all Twitter access from there. Wouldn't be surprised if he did. The bigger issue with that, though? The EU is arguing that the policy statements of a US Presidential candidate are "hate speech." Think on what that means in terms of 1) election interference, and 2) foreign relations should Trump win. That's a frightening prospect - the EU having a legal basis, even requirement under EU regulation and law, to interfere in US elections and break off relations should the result not go their way. Again, it was GCHQ and our EU "allies" who started the initial Trump/Russia story, not Clinton, not Obama, not Biden. They're not our allies. They haven't been for a long time. And sooner or later, they need to be dealt with. Harshly. (Though, from the looks of it in the UK, their own People are going to do most of the job for us). 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Clavin Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 1 minute ago, Ann said: Note: I do not agree with your assessment that the EU has a requirement or legal basis to interfere. Nothing close to "hate speech" has been said. This is preemptive, and AFAIK the law is reactive. I understand, and agree - nothing Trump has said comes even close to "hate speech" as I'd consider it (and what's more, I take the classically liberal "I disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it" position on hate speech.) but hate speech in the EU is whatever the EU says it is. And the EU does not necessarily operate on the principle that prior restraint is illegal. They may very well have a legal basis under EU law to interfere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 2 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: I understand, and agree - nothing Trump has said comes even close to "hate speech" as I'd consider it (and what's more, I take the classically liberal "I disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it" position on hate speech.) but hate speech in the EU is whatever the EU says it is. And the EU does not necessarily operate on the principle that prior restraint is illegal. They may very well have a legal basis under EU law to interfere. The law is reactive, not proactive. IOW, it's all bullshit. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Clavin Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 4 minutes ago, Ann said: The law is reactive, not proactive. IOW, it's all bullshit. US law is reactive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 1 minute ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: US law is reactive. So is the EU measure (I guess it isn't a law) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 People do like being independent. What Scott Presler has done in PA is impressive. Arizona and California 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Clavin Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 8 minutes ago, Ann said: So is the EU measure (I guess it isn't a law) https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/dsa-enforcement Since Theirry's argument is about the DSA...and arguing that Trump's interview is a violation under an existing investigation, thus allowing for the preemptory suspension of any X services in the EU. It's a bullshit regulation, and why you won't see me moving to Europe any time soon. But it exists, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 Just now, Crap Throwing Clavin said: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/dsa-enforcement Since Theirry's argument is about the DSA...and arguing that Trump's interview is a violation under an existing investigation, thus allowing for the preemptory suspension of any X services in the EU. It's a bullshit regulation, and why you won't see me moving to Europe any time soon. But it exists, Reading that, a suspicion!? But it has to open a proceeding. If it finds guilt (let's face it, they will), it is a fine or they suspend X from the EU. But, it is reactive, not proactive as it happens during monitoring. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyst Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 32 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: Twitter is an international company, and is required to conform to the laws of the countries it does business in, including the EU. That's not unprecedented - Google has had to deal with the same legal issues w/r/t China. Of course, Musk can simply decide to not do business in the EU, and block all Twitter access from there. Wouldn't be surprised if he did. The bigger issue with that, though? The EU is arguing that the policy statements of a US Presidential candidate are "hate speech." Think on what that means in terms of 1) election interference, and 2) foreign relations should Trump win. That's a frightening prospect - the EU having a legal basis, even requirement under EU regulation and law, to interfere in US elections and break off relations should the result not go their way. cool pull the troops out of Germany and other european locations. they would be financially hurt and military wise could not hold up their own security. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Clavin Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 4 minutes ago, Boyst said: cool pull the troops out of Germany and other european locations. they would be financially hurt and military wise could not hold up their own security. Not that many troops in Europe any more. Mostly we use Germany as a transit point for Southwest Asia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 3 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: Not that many troops in Europe any more. Mostly we use Germany as a transit point for Southwest Asia. Yep, a far cry from the levels we had in Europe 50-60 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 52 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: Twitter is an international company, and is required to conform to the laws of the countries it does business in, including the EU. That's not unprecedented - Google has had to deal with the same legal issues w/r/t China. Of course, Musk can simply decide to not do business in the EU, and block all Twitter access from there. Wouldn't be surprised if he did. The bigger issue with that, though? The EU is arguing that the policy statements of a US Presidential candidate are "hate speech." Think on what that means in terms of 1) election interference, and 2) foreign relations should Trump win. That's a frightening prospect - the EU having a legal basis, even requirement under EU regulation and law, to interfere in US elections and break off relations should the result not go their way. Since the interview hasn’t yet occurred, I’m not seeing how this is any different than proactively moving against perceived thought crimes. The UK has fallen and only a violent uprising will right that ship. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Clavin Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 Just now, Hedge said: Since the interview hasn’t yet occurred, I’m not seeing how this is any different than proactively moving against perceived thought crimes. It isn't. And was it Argentina that's talking about using AI to create a "PreCrime Division?" Welcome to the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.