• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Presidential Election 2024

SENC said:
@Shaggy & @Downeastnc , send this too your WX Forum buddies..
YES, I AM,, shopping for Att. Put them on notice..
(I DID not violate ANY "user agreement" )

  • Collusion to repress opinions must be met with immediate and harsh legal sanction under existing law. This can be done today under 15 USC Ch 1 and again it is not fines that have to be sought, it is criminal felony charges against directors and officers of any firm that engages in same. Any firm is free to do what it wishes individually but when you leverage, for example, "brand safety" claims you're not an individual firm any more -- you are acting in collusion with others, the right you are implicating is the First Amendment and that's illegal under 100+ year old felony criminal law. Here's look at essentially all of the social media platforms. ("X" is the closest to be in compliance and can probably come into compliance fairly easily -- for the others, its an earthquake but one that should have been applied 10 years ago.) The First Amendment does not apply to private concerns as no such right exists in the private space, absent government involvement, but anti-monopoly statutes do and they're a ten year, pound-you-in-the-ass felony conviction for violations. In addition to indicting firms you also indict directors and officers by name and personally, throwing them in prison upon conviction as the Statute not only permits but requires.
Click to expand...
Where you'd find this garbage
 
SENC said:
@Shaggy & @Downeastnc , send this too your WX Forum buddies..
YES, I AM,, shopping for Att. Put them on notice..
(I DID not violate ANY "user agreement" )

  • Collusion to repress opinions must be met with immediate and harsh legal sanction under existing law. This can be done today under 15 USC Ch 1 and again it is not fines that have to be sought, it is criminal felony charges against directors and officers of any firm that engages in same.

  • Any firm is free to do what it wishes individually but when you leverage, for example, "brand safety" claims you're not an individual firm any more -- you are acting in collusion with others, the right you are implicating is the First Amendment and that's illegal under 100+ year old felony criminal law.

  • Here's look at essentially all of the social media platforms. ("X" is the closest to be in compliance and can probably come into compliance fairly easily -- for the others, its an earthquake but one that should have been applied 10 years ago.) The First Amendment does not apply to private concerns as no such right exists in the private space, absent government involvement, but anti-monopoly statutes do and they're a ten year, pound-you-in-the-ass felony conviction for violations.
  • In addition to indicting firms you also indict directors and officers by name and personally, throwing them in prison upon conviction as the Statute not only permits but requires.
Click to expand...
I encourage you to spend all your money on that attorney
 
$alt said:
There is as of today, two or three people on here, at most, causing division in this thread with emoji reactions or textual arguments.

You guys can entertain it instead of having encouraging and supportive debate, or you can not respond and it goes away.

The majority of Americans have shown that these people who are divisive, accusatorial, and downright mean people who consider themselves on the left, are now the minority.
Click to expand...
I don't know why people keep carrying on this way. By now everyone should know who is here to have a decent conversation and who just wants to play woody woodpecker causing headaches
 
Broken024 said:
It’s pretty clear to me.

All PERSONS BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
Ok, lets get this clear. I think most on here are smart enough to understand the "persons born" here thing. What many of us want who support deportation applies to those who were not born here but have come here illegally. If you are here illegally you have to go home. Pursue legal migration if you so wish but if you are here illegally you have to go home period.
 
Shaggy said:
Then go to some alt right circle jerk site and have fun in an echo chamber.
Click to expand...
So if someone wants to deport illegals they are alt right. This further confirms why they lost the election, and why they like to use the courts to enact policy because American people don’t want it.
 
Shaggy said:
Is that kind of like how the Republicans worked with Biden on that border policy that they shot down I mean why do you expect the left to suddenly just fall in line with the Republicans when the Republicans never just fell in line with the left after Biden's mandate
Click to expand...

I mean I guess the democrats can refuse, but based on how the public just reacted to this very thing, it may not work out well for them.
 
Arcc said:
I mean I guess the democrats can refuse, but based on how the public just reacted to this very thing, it may not work out well for them.
Click to expand...
Jim Clyburn, a deep blue lifelong politician in my state said that he was concerned about how many people in his district were asking how to do a split vote because they wanted to vote for Trump as president.

A large number of Democrat and Independent voters went for Trump as president. The ones against Trump and who push division, still, are now the minority.
 
It is now time to send the minority who want to continue attacking Americans, their decision to vote for Trump, likely the House, and the Senate back to their echo chambers amongst themselves.

Fueling their hate and division of their fellow Americans only serves their personal interests.
 
$alt said:
Jim Clyburn, a deep blue lifelong politician in my state said that he was concerned about how many people in his district were asking how to do a split vote because they wanted to vote for Trump as president.

A large number of Democrat and Independent voters went for Trump as president. The ones against Trump and who push division, still, are now the minority.
Click to expand...

The democrats will have to come back to the center baring a depression or something.
 
Avalanche said:
So if someone wants to deport illegals they are alt right. This further confirms why they lost the election, and why they like to use the courts to enact policy because American people don’t want it.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said or implied is it my implication is that if he doesn't like other people's opinions especially ones leaning more moderate or left that maybe he should seek out echo chambers to his liking
 
Broken024 said:
It’s pretty clear to me.

All PERSONS BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
I haven't thought about it exhaustively, but it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to make this work. This was never meant to be a workaround for the immigration process or create an "anchor baby" system. If someone comes here to have their baby, that baby is now a citizen; but then that parent(s) should also be required to become a legalized citizen or risk penalties that apply, including deportation. Then with legal citizenship comes certain responsibilities (there's that word the left hates) such as obtaining IDs, paying taxes, fitting guidelines for programs, obtaining insurance for homes and cars, and registering to vote. I have always said I think the immigration needs to be updated and simplified so it doesn't take years to become a citizen, so that is part of the equation as well. It really isn't that hard to do this fairly and rationally.
 
Shaggy said:
No but it says anyone born here is a citizen regardless of parents status doesn't it. A simple yes or no will do
Click to expand...
Yes it does but in a lot of cases illegals will bring their children over the border expecting to get citizenship. The point of this law would prevent people from gaming the system and help with streamlining a already complicated system at the border.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top