Posted on 05/29/2020 9:13:11 AM PDT by conservative98
Iran has done nothing to me and my family
In contrast, China exported a lethal virus that has hit some people I know very hard. And has triggered highest unemployment since the Great Depression
But neocons like Cruz are obsessed with Iran. In fact, they were so obsessed with game playing and regime change in the Middle East that they didn’t protect America from China and the real tangible destruction that China has cost us
I’m so glad Cruz got stomped in 2016.
I wouldn’t worry about it. Cruz is kicking ass and helping out Trump in every way possible.
As soon as Trump nominates him for VP or Supreme Court Justice or Attorney General or endorses his Presidential run in 2024, these two mouth breathing dummies will fall in line.
Agreed.
Cruz is fine as a Senator, he is not a natural born citizen.
I won’t be supporting Cruz for anything beyond Senator.
Needless to say, I agree.
The Natural Born Citizen clause arises as an issue more than in the past, thanks to increases in transnational travel, employment and marriage. It’s apt to come up more in the future.
Better case law to settle its meaning is desirable. Many on the right have firm beliefs about it, but observation here tells me they don’t all have the exact same firm beliefs. I’d love a Supreme Court decision written by Justice Thomas explaining its meaning. The left wouldn’t like that, but then they oppose thinking about the Constitution, or even just thinking in general. Thomas can’t pick everyone’s theory, but he could explain his choice better than anyone else and HIS choice would be better accepted amongst those who favor an originalist constitution than any others. Those are the only ones who matter here IMHO! Cruz has issues, depending on one’s NBC take. At least the facts in his case, unlike Obama’s alleged fraud, are not in dispute, just which definition of NBC to apply is. It would be nice to definitively resolve Cruz’s case before he runs again or is considered for POTUS or VPOTUS again. Kamala Harris, a very possible Biden VP pick, has potential issues here. Maybe they’ll finally provide a case with standing. If Thomas threw out Harris Biden could always fall back on Tank Abrams.
Excuse me - but I do believe this is now a museum parked down in San Pedro CA. :-(
Just to be sure I understand, the banning of conservatives by Twitter et al. is at the behest of China?
I guess not 100% but it doesn't make any sense to me why they would.
Even so that's a long way from saying:
You can't have "private" censorship without government's exerting pressure to force the "private" companies to do what they want.
Here I've always been told it was the fault of the liberal Silicon Valley elites but now I guess they're being forced into it.
How do you propose that we liberate Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Brin, etc. from the hold of the Chinese?
Both are likely true. Have you not noticed how communist sycophants will pretend it's their own ideas when it's really what they have been told to think?
How do you propose that we liberate Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Brin, etc. from the hold of the Chinese?
It would seem to me that if it was *AGAINST THE F***ING LAW TO CENSOR AMERICANS*, then it would be pretty hard for the Chinese or the Iranians, or the Europeans to force American companies to censor Americans.
If the Chinese said "censor criticism of the Chinese government", Google would have to tell them, "It is against American law for us to do this thing you want us to do."
So now what does China do? They could ban all American communications companies from China and create their own, but the point is they wouldn't be tampering with public opinion, and thereby our elections, by controlling communications back here.
Rafael continues to try atoning for his 2016 assholery.
I’d like to see him kiss The Don’s feet as a gesture.
Which would mean the first amendment no longer obtains.
Do you need me to link to a SCOTUS opinion saying that? That a private citizen (or company) being forced by the government to say something they don't want to say is a violation of free speech?
Again, read the First Amendment. It is designed to prevent tyrants and petty wannabe tyrants from inhibiting speech by the use of government power which is exactly what you wish to do.
Stop. Just stop. Goolag, Fascist book and Twatter can say anything they d@mn well please. What they cannot do is operate a public communications company and only allow some people to use it.
Till you can explain why it's important, you are just another source of babbling on the internet so far as i'm concerned.
Well, that may or may not be true for a "public communications company", whatever that is, but it's clearly not true for private actors like Alphabet, Facebook and Twitter.
It's trivially easy to find case law upholding this principle. As an example, from the Prager U case:
"Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment. Prager University (“PragerU”) sees things differently and claims YouTube’s outsize power to moderate user content is a threat to the fair dissemination of “conservative viewpoints and perspectives on public issues,” and that YouTube has become a public forum.PragerU runs headfirst into two insurmountable barriers—the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. Just last year, the Court held that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.” Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019). The Internet does not alter this state action requirement of the First Amendment."
I realize you don't agree with this and wish it wasn't the state of the law, but it is. Just asserting that it isn't makes you look unserious.
You want to take away the first amendment rights of the techs because you think they discriminate against your viewpoint. Unfortunately for you that's not how the Constitution works.
There's nothing wrong with not liking some of the implications of the Bill of Rights but the answer isn't to just pretend it doesn't exist.
You cannot call them "private actors" if their business requires Public participation.
I'll tell you what let's do. Let's ban the public from using their restricted speech system, and let them operate as a "private" club where they can censor any one of their members that they like. How about that?
It's trivially easy to find case law upholding this principle.
It is trivially easy to find case law to support abortion and homosexuality, but anyone with real knowledge of our history knows these rulings are utter bullsh*t made up by phony baloney activist judges with an agenda.
I have absolutely no respect for "case law" decided by liberal judges who have no actual respect or even understanding for the laws they are trampling down to enact their agenda.
And neither should you.
You want to take away the first amendment rights of the techs because you think they discriminate against your viewpoint. Unfortunately for you that's not how the Constitution works.
It's amusing that you think "how the constitution works" has a d@mn thing to do with how Federal court decisions get shoved down the nation's throats. Most conservatives are well aware of all the federal court abuses over the years, and they generally express contempt for the liberal judiciary and their lying decisions.
Homosexual marriage? Where is that in Constitutional law? We used to lock up those sick perverts in mental institutions, and this was the normal solution to them for a couple of hundred years in this country.
Don't lecture me on Federal Court crap decisions. As I said, most conservatives are well aware the federal courts have long been filled with lying Liberal judges who make up law as they go along.
Mostly this was caused by Roosevelt.
If we don't have the courts to adjudicate legal disputes all we have is each other giving our opinions, which may amuse us but is otherwise inconsequential..
You toss words like conservative around and then reject the rule of law.
I don't agree with every legal decision but do consider them useful to help order our society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.