Because there is a legitimate security reason to ban Tiktok, while banning Truth Social for supporting a fascist would run up against the 1st Amendment.
Because there’s rare bipartisan agreement on banning Tiktok due to the security risks presented by the Chinese government.
Because the Tiktok ban is unrelated to the election. As evidenced by the normally hyperpartisan GOP being onboard.
Because Biden is a democrat, small d, and believes that elections should be largely free and fair, and silencing the opposition is neither. Yes, including if the opposition consists of fascists.
Because that would feed into the right-wing narrative of “The DEMS are OPPRESSING US” which can sway low-information voters with singular high-profile incidents repeated loudly and often.
Get real man. Tik Tok was never about China. It was always about silencing support for Palestinians. This is known.
Why do I feel like you’re the type to argue that fascist rhetoric is protected under the 1st amendment? If you think fascists deserve a platform, you are the bad guy. This is liberalism.
It was always about silencing support for Palestinians
This makes you look so uninformed it is literally causing me to cringe. The ban was proposed several years ago, by republicans originally.
What the absolute fuck. When you say something so uninformed, it makes me think you actually are just mad about your funny videos and will look for anything else that sounds less pathetic to whine about
Motherfucker, Democrats got on board YEARS AGO because giving an authoritarian government full access to surveil your citizens is a fucking no brainer thing to want to prevent.
All you’re doing here is revealing that you’ve no idea what’s been happening in the world. Probably due to endlessly scrolling through 15 second clips.
Ps I will never click a TikTok link, even if it wasn’t clearly irrelevant
Not unlike common sense. Commonly held, and very often wrong, because it just appeals to the prejudices and preconceptions of the person repeating it.
Why do I feel like you’re the type to argue that fascist rhetoric is protected under the 1st amendment? If you think fascists deserve a platform, you are the bad guy. This is liberalism.
Because it literally is. Whether you agree with that or not, the ACLU has gone to bat on the issue and established the issue several times in the highest courts of the land. If you’re arguing that Biden should be doing something he doesn’t have the power to do, I don’t know what to tell you.
So let me get this straight… you hold (one specific reading of) the first amendment to be so sacred, that you’d sooner follow it and allow its dissolution by fascists, than deplatform the fascists who wish to dissolve it?
You’d sacrifice your constitution and nation just so that you could have the moral benefit of having followed it?
So let me get this straight… you hold (one specific reading of) the first amendment to be so sacred, that you’d sooner follow it and allow its dissolution by fascists, than deplatform the fascists who wish to dissolve it?
This is not the place or time for the argument of the question of how much power the government should have to decide what kind of politics count as unacceptably fascist. This is about Biden - Biden does not have the power nor political support to shut down Truth Social, so why the fuck bring it up?
So all of these obstacles that you list as reasons to why Biden is so ineffective - why didn’t he just nominate an AG who’d give him a free pass to do anything he wanted - like Trump? Why isn’t Biden bending the rule of law to halt fascism?
The answer is because you cling to “precedence” and “civility” so hard that you’d rather see a fascist takeover before a democrat disobeys your precious rules and processes that were set up by 30 year old slave owners. To liberals, the rule of law takes precedence over a fascist takeover. It is bizarre.
Dictators are those who exceed the normal constitutional boundaries of an elected office to impose their own will on a democratic system. Sorry that that’s too complex for you to understand.
Because there is a legitimate security reason to ban Tiktok, while banning Truth Social for supporting a fascist would run up against the 1st Amendment.
Because there’s rare bipartisan agreement on banning Tiktok due to the security risks presented by the Chinese government.
Because the Tiktok ban is unrelated to the election. As evidenced by the normally hyperpartisan GOP being onboard.
Because Biden is a democrat, small d, and believes that elections should be largely free and fair, and silencing the opposition is neither. Yes, including if the opposition consists of fascists.
Because that would feed into the right-wing narrative of “The DEMS are OPPRESSING US” which can sway low-information voters with singular high-profile incidents repeated loudly and often.
Get real man. Tik Tok was never about China. It was always about silencing support for Palestinians. This is known.
Why do I feel like you’re the type to argue that fascist rhetoric is protected under the 1st amendment? If you think fascists deserve a platform, you are the bad guy. This is liberalism.
This makes you look so uninformed it is literally causing me to cringe. The ban was proposed several years ago, by republicans originally.
What the absolute fuck. When you say something so uninformed, it makes me think you actually are just mad about your funny videos and will look for anything else that sounds less pathetic to whine about
And the reason Dems got onboard was because of how much pro Palestine info came from TikTok. Here’s a video of mitt mentioning it in passing
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLXuRXnT/
Motherfucker, Democrats got on board YEARS AGO because giving an authoritarian government full access to surveil your citizens is a fucking no brainer thing to want to prevent.
All you’re doing here is revealing that you’ve no idea what’s been happening in the world. Probably due to endlessly scrolling through 15 second clips.
Ps I will never click a TikTok link, even if it wasn’t clearly irrelevant
They got on board but only just voted for it now. Curious lol
Username checks out
Not as good as ignoring the history that happened in favor of simping for Chinese authoritarianism tho amirite
Maybe they only put it up for a vote now.
Curious.
Jesus Christ, you really can’t stop yourself, can you?
Yeah it’s fun messing with people who are wrong. I can’t help it 🙂
Not unlike common sense. Commonly held, and very often wrong, because it just appeals to the prejudices and preconceptions of the person repeating it.
Because it literally is. Whether you agree with that or not, the ACLU has gone to bat on the issue and established the issue several times in the highest courts of the land. If you’re arguing that Biden should be doing something he doesn’t have the power to do, I don’t know what to tell you.
So let me get this straight… you hold (one specific reading of) the first amendment to be so sacred, that you’d sooner follow it and allow its dissolution by fascists, than deplatform the fascists who wish to dissolve it?
You’d sacrifice your constitution and nation just so that you could have the moral benefit of having followed it?
This is not the place or time for the argument of the question of how much power the government should have to decide what kind of politics count as unacceptably fascist. This is about Biden - Biden does not have the power nor political support to shut down Truth Social, so why the fuck bring it up?
“Because I haven’t won yet so I need to move the goalposts until I make the ball be inside it.”
So all of these obstacles that you list as reasons to why Biden is so ineffective - why didn’t he just nominate an AG who’d give him a free pass to do anything he wanted - like Trump? Why isn’t Biden bending the rule of law to halt fascism?
The answer is because you cling to “precedence” and “civility” so hard that you’d rather see a fascist takeover before a democrat disobeys your precious rules and processes that were set up by 30 year old slave owners. To liberals, the rule of law takes precedence over a fascist takeover. It is bizarre.
It’s bizarre that the president isn’t a dictator, because otherwise a president who’s a dictator could be elected.
That’s an interesting point of view.
So dictators are people who do the absolute minimum to halt fascism. Got it.
Dictators are those who exceed the normal constitutional boundaries of an elected office to impose their own will on a democratic system. Sorry that that’s too complex for you to understand.
I don’t usually get out here like this, but you’re a fucking idiot if that’s how you see the situation.
“gEt rEal Man” STFU