Quote:So can someone breakdown Trump's immigration proposal?

I think you mean “Kushner’s immigration proposal”.

(05-19-2019 08:28 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Since when are scribbles on tourist attractions considered laws?

Not a statement of law but of principles/values.

(05-19-2019 09:02 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  Even the argument of "Israel is too small to let in immigrants" - it's bullshit since the Jewish lobbies want much smaller countries in Europe flooded with incompatible immigrants too. So it's fine if Dutch, Belgians and Swedes get wiped out eh?

Sounds like a case of Not In My Backyard.

On the other hand, the economies of Belgium, etc., are much larger than that of Israel in terms of GDP and thus would be expected to peacefully absorb a larger number of migrants.

(05-19-2019 10:04 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  "A stone dropped will not fall down but up" is no different from [...] "it's right to complain about massively biased MSM coverage but wrong to note that they're all owned and operated by jews" [...] [We're] well on our way to a mass awakening.

Perhaps you have discarded one delusion for the other.

There are productive citizens all over the place, going about their lives, migrating, getting jobs in new industries--regardless of their complexion.

"A man can't change into a woman" the same as "Somalis are intrinsically less competent than Swedes."

Even if both of those propositions have an affirmative truth value...

One of them is a logical truism.

The other is a hypothesis that may or may not be found to align perfectly with the empirical data after closer examination.

Can you see the difference?

(05-19-2019 01:06 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

(05-19-2019 11:36 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  So can someone breakdown Trump's immigration proposal? Good/bad?

As far as border security goes:
- It plans to build new wall in 30 or so "strategic locations"
- Beefs up security and technology at ports of entry
- Expedites the asylum process so that applicants are approved or denied without having to hang about somewhere in the US
- Establishes some sort of Border Fund that pays for some of this via money collected from border crossings

Legal Immigration:
- Shift from family based immigration to skills based immigration
- Establishes a point based system requiring you to have advanced education, a job offer, financial self-sufficiency, English fluency, passing a civics exam,etc
- Mandatory E-Verify
- Nothing about DACA

According to the numbers and percentages Trump outlined in his rollout speech, this is what the before and after is proposed to be:



The stated aim is to keep the immigration numbers the same, but it clearly is not going to work out that way. According to Trump the roughly 4 million person backlog would be evaluated under the new visa system, which effectively means they aren't getting in given most of them are there because of a family relation. Furthermore a good chunk of immigrants aren't going to come if they can only bring their spouse and minor children.

It's a very good step in the right direction when you consider that Kushner was involved and took input from some Conservative Inc. circles. And there is less fire and fury with this rollout, with Trump using more nuanced language which suggests this is meant to be more palatable for cucks and others. Naturally the NYT and WSJ editorial boards hate it anyway.

It's dead politically until 2020 because of the House, but allegedly the Senate is ok with it. So for now it's a campaign promise - give me the House back and I'll get this passed. Make of that what you will.

And what's the excuse for why this was not done in Trump's first two years with a technical majority? Any super-loyal Trump supporters still around want to explain?

Seems like all the important things like health care and immigration are getting pushed back to 2020 AND on the assumption the GOP re-takes the House.

Swear to Christ, Trump better take some real action on online censorship ASAP. There is some bipartisan support on this issue. Give us something legit RIGHT NOW for fucks sake... no more "monitoring" or "we'll do it when we get the House in 2020" bullshit.

(05-19-2019 11:34 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  [...] Trump better take some real action on online censorship [...]

You mean requiring private media platforms to support coverage of people they'd prefer not to?

If you truly believe in your ideas, you shouldn't need their platforms in order to succeed.

That is what the free market entails.

Is discrimination good or bad for business? Well, Facebook discriminates... and only the test of time will tell us whether that is a viable, sustainable business model, or whether they fail and are replaced by their competitors.

The thing about requiring platforms to cover all users regardless of their beliefs or practices.... It's similar to but also different from requiring an Evangelical baker to bake a gay wedding cake.

There are different rights poised at odds--The Freedom of Religion versus Equal Protection. In a civilized society, we weigh these rights against each other.

In the case of a media platform, I say the government should keep its hands off and let, for example, Amazon de-platform Roosh.

Now Roosh has--out of necessity--begun to use alternative platforms to do business, and his message is still accesible to those who seek him out.

People shouldn't be required to market beliefs they disagree with.

On the other hand, a baker is serving a single client, who specifically commissioned the cake. This is different from the case of Facebook, who serves as a medium between third parties, and so are staking more of their brand on the decision of who to cover.

(05-20-2019 12:09 AM)felix_vagabondo Wrote:  

(05-19-2019 11:34 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  [...] Trump better take some real action on online censorship [...]

You mean requiring private media platforms to support coverage of people they'd prefer not to?

If you truly believe in your ideas, you shouldn't need their platforms in order to succeed.

That is what the free market entails.

Is discrimination good or bad for business? Well, Facebook discriminates... and only the test of time will tell us whether that is a viable, sustainable business model, or whether they fail and are replaced by their competitors.

The thing about requiring platforms to cover all users regardless of their beliefs or practices.... It's similar to but also different from requiring an Evangelical baker to bake a gay wedding cake.

There are different rights poised at odds--The Freedom of Religion versus Equal Protection. In a civilized society, we weigh these rights against each other.

In the case of a media platform, I say the government should keep its hands off and let, for example, Amazon de-platform Roosh.

Now Roosh has--out of necessity--begun to use alternative platforms to do business, and his message is still accesible to those who seek him out.

People shouldn't be required to market beliefs they disagree with.

On the other hand, a baker is serving a single client, who specifically commissioned the cake. This is different from the case of Facebook, who serves as a medium between third parties, and so are staking more of their brand on the decision of who to cover.

I think you're gonna find out real soon how much you just fucked yourself.

(05-20-2019 12:09 AM)felix_vagabondo Wrote:  

(05-19-2019 11:34 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  [...] Trump better take some real action on online censorship [...]

You mean requiring private media platforms to support coverage of people they'd prefer not to?

If you truly believe in your ideas, you shouldn't need their platforms in order to succeed.

That is what the free market entails.

Is discrimination good or bad for business? Well, Facebook discriminates... and only the test of time will tell us whether that is a viable, sustainable business model, or whether they fail and are replaced by their competitors.

The thing about requiring platforms to cover all users regardless of their beliefs or practices.... It's similar to but also different from requiring an Evangelical baker to bake a gay wedding cake.

There are different rights poised at odds--The Freedom of Religion versus Equal Protection. In a civilized society, we weigh these rights against each other.

In the case of a media platform, I say the government should keep its hands off and let, for example, Amazon de-platform Roosh.

Now Roosh has--out of necessity--begun to use alternative platforms to do business, and his message is still accesible to those who seek him out.

People shouldn't be required to market beliefs they disagree with.

On the other hand, a baker is serving a single client, who specifically commissioned the cake. This is different from the case of Facebook, who serves as a medium between third parties, and so are staking more of their brand on the decision of who to cover.

The only problem is that these companies do more than just de-platform.
They de-platform and character assassinate in order to justify their de-platforming.

This is a form of economic warfare and they get away with it because the libel laws are outdated.

Imagine if Roosh was de-platformed and the reason Twitter gave wasn't "he advocates for pro-rape and his ideas are a threat to society" but they could only say, "we don't like him because of what he says", Oh how different things would be.

The former allows them to censor and wield tremendous power by destroying an individual's future, the latter would make them think twice before going on a commie crusade, forcing everyone to tow the party line or else.

(05-20-2019 02:20 AM)Barron Wrote:  They [...] character assassinate in order to justify their de-platforming.

But that is the beauty of free speech.

Quote:Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.

Proverbs 17:28

As soon as one of these 2-dimensional shills publish something that is just re-gurgitated talking points derived from some other source, oftentimes positing obvious falsehoods (e.g., "Roosh is a rape advocate"), that immediately raises a red flag, and everyone that's paying attention learns that the writer is a hack and not to be trusted. Some of these writers are betting that their reputations will fare better if they toe the SJW line. But when we observe that movement as a whole (e.g., Gillette condemning street pickup game in their ads), we see that it's in retreat mode, merely forestalling a cataclysmic correction of course. That's why they can't handle a respectful conversation with somebody that disagrees with their opinion. They censor others because they do not have faith in the truth-power of their own propositions, or they do not have faith in the ability of persons in a public forum to discern the value of those propositions. I say, let's have faith in the ideas we speak, and the ability of persons to discern their value, whatever it may be, or let us consider holding our tongue.

Lolbertarians. Yeesh.

Get back to me after everyone with "wrong opinions" is deplatformed and FB then says "no social media platforms for businesses that employ or source goods/services from thought criminals (IE people without an active FB account).

These people are children who've never attended a history class and they're living in fantasy land.

According to them as long as a digital oligarchy captures democracy and the entire market using free market principles then folk are obligated to bow to shadow-king Zuckerberg for all time.

Pathetic neckbeard cowards.

(05-20-2019 02:33 AM)felix_vagabondo Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 02:20 AM)Barron Wrote:  They [...] character assassinate in order to justify their de-platforming.

But that is the beauty of free speech.

You ignoring my point about libel shows me that you're not interested in a conversation.
Yes we have free speech but you're [not supposed to be] allowed to print something that isn't true, it wasn't long ago there were real consequences for that. The tech oligarchs simply use their money and influence to drown out any charges of libel, and this is why the laws need to be updated.

(05-20-2019 02:37 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Lolbertarians. Yeesh.

I'm with LDN on this one.

(05-20-2019 12:09 AM)felix_vagabondo Wrote:  

(05-19-2019 11:34 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  [...] Trump better take some real action on online censorship [...]

You mean requiring private media platforms to support coverage of people they'd prefer not to?

If you truly believe in your ideas, you shouldn't need their platforms in order to succeed.

That is what the free market entails.

Is discrimination good or bad for business? Well, Facebook discriminates... and only the test of time will tell us whether that is a viable, sustainable business model, or whether they fail and are replaced by their competitors.

The thing about requiring platforms to cover all users regardless of their beliefs or practices.... It's similar to but also different from requiring an Evangelical baker to bake a gay wedding cake.

There are different rights poised at odds--The Freedom of Religion versus Equal Protection. In a civilized society, we weigh these rights against each other.

In the case of a media platform, I say the government should keep its hands off and let, for example, Amazon de-platform Roosh.

Now Roosh has--out of necessity--begun to use alternative platforms to do business, and his message is still accesible to those who seek him out.

People shouldn't be required to market beliefs they disagree with.

On the other hand, a baker is serving a single client, who specifically commissioned the cake. This is different from the case of Facebook, who serves as a medium between third parties, and so are staking more of their brand on the decision of who to cover.

I'm not going to bother posting the "platform vs publisher" argument because it would fly over your head.

Private companies can do no wrong! Corporations are people too! (etc cuck cuck etc)

(05-20-2019 02:20 AM)Barron Wrote:  Imagine if Roosh was de-platformed and the reason Twitter gave wasn't "he advocates for pro-rape and his ideas are a threat to society" but they could only say, "we don't like him because of what he says" [...]

They're a private party, so they can say whatever they want, short of slander, and de-platform anyone they want. That's the benefit of being a private (versus public) entity: you have control over your own voice, and your own digital hardware. You get to decide whether or not to signal this or that value or belief. People don't have to listen, and there's a risk that they won't--if they don't like what they hear.

Slander is already illegal. What more do you want?

(05-20-2019 02:37 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  [...] a digital oligarchy captures democracy and the entire market using free market principles [...]

It's also already illegal to own a monopoly in any given industry. If they're too big that they end up wielding this outsized coercive ability, then the law says to split them up.

(05-20-2019 02:55 AM)godfather dust Wrote:  I'm not going to bother posting the "platform vs publisher" argument [...]

Are you too afraid to state it publicly, that it might be refuted?

(05-20-2019 02:55 AM)godfather dust Wrote:  Private companies can do no wrong! Corporations are people too!

You said that, not me.

(05-20-2019 02:58 AM)felix_vagabondo Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 02:20 AM)Barron Wrote:  Imagine if Roosh was de-platformed and the reason Twitter gave wasn't "he advocates for pro-rape and his ideas are a threat to society" but they could only say, "we don't like him because of what he says" [...]

They're a private party, so they can say whatever they want, short of slander, and de-platform anyone they want. That's the benefit of being a private (versus public) entity: you have control over your own voice, and your own digital hardware. You get to decide whether or not to signal this or that value or belief. People don't have to listen, and there's a risk that they won't--if they don't like what they hear.

Tell that to the Nick Sandman of the Covington Cathlolic school.

(05-20-2019 02:58 AM)felix_vagabondo Wrote:  ...

(05-20-2019 02:37 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  [...] a digital oligarchy captures democracy and the entire market using free market principles [...]

It's also already illegal to own a monopoly in any given industry. If they're too big that they end up wielding this outsized coercive ability, then the law says to split them up.

...

Oh, thank goodness. We're already there by any reasonable definition. Have been for some time in fact.

How are the proceedings going?

(05-20-2019 03:01 AM)Barron Wrote:  [...] Nick Sandman of the Covington Cathlolic school. [...]

The SJW movement showed its true colors. History watched them make fools out of themselves with an immense outpouring of rage in reaction to an image that was intentionally misleading. Again, this is the beauty of free speech. It allows those who are watching an awareness of the contour lines of our society. In which corners is truth focused? In which corners is deception? The ideas and the propositions speak for themselves.

But I'll get off my soapbox for now, unless you guys have any more rebuttals.

(05-20-2019 03:15 AM)felix_vagabondo Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 03:01 AM)Barron Wrote:  [...] Nick Sandman of the Covington Cathlolic school. [...]

The SJW movement showed its true colors. History watched them make fools out of themselves with an immense outpouring of rage in reaction to an image that was intentionally misleading. Again, this is the beauty of free speech. It allows those who are watching an awareness of the contour lines of our society. In which corners is truth focused? In which corners is deception? The ideas and the propositions speak for themselves.

But I'll get off my soapbox for now, unless you guys have any more rebuttals.

So basically, the lawsuits he's filing against CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, etc., are all fraudulent because "they made fools of themselves".

Please stay on your soapbox, we need more of this kind of logic here.

(05-20-2019 03:09 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 02:58 AM)felix_vagabondo Wrote:  ...

(05-20-2019 02:37 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  [...] a digital oligarchy captures democracy and the entire market using free market principles [...]

It's also already illegal to own a monopoly in any given industry. If they're too big that they end up wielding this outsized coercive ability, then the law says to split them up.

...

Oh, thank goodness. We're already there by any reasonable definition. Have been for some time in fact.

How are the proceedings going?

That would be a question for the US Department of Justice.

Quote:The company has become a power that it seems no one in Washington can control [...]

https://www.businessinsider.com/break-up...ies-2019-5

It may be that the novelty of Facebook's business model (consumers don't pay for the service) resulted in a non-existant or sluggish law enforcement response, but now they're too powerful to actually confront. Scary stuff.

If there's evidence of a monopoly but the authorities can't even muster the snuff to file a case against Facebook, then the case needs political intervention. You'd get my support on that. But I doubt that's the case. Facebook is in court all the time as a defendant.

The question is, how exactly would you regulate this industry? You can't just divvy up the accounts, like with Broadband providers, because it's by nature a single global forum. And if you banned Facebook, surely it would be replaced by others who provide the same service.

(05-20-2019 03:19 AM)Barron Wrote:  [...] the lawsuits he's filing against CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, etc., are all fraudulent [...]

Not if the courts find them culpable.

(05-20-2019 03:19 AM)Barron Wrote:  [...] we need more of this kind of logic here.

(05-20-2019 03:33 AM)felix_vagabondo Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 03:19 AM)Barron Wrote:  [...] the lawsuits he's filing against CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, etc., are all fraudulent [...]

Not if the courts find them culpable.

According to your above remarks, they're simply exercising their free speech as private enterprises, and have done nothing wrong. But now you include the possibility of the courts finding them guilty of wrongdoing - sorry but you can't have it both ways.

Now pivot onto your next talking point because this one hasn't gone so well for you.

(05-20-2019 03:45 AM)Barron Wrote:  [...] they're simply exercising their free speech [...] But now you include the possibility of the courts finding them guilty of wrongdoing - sorry but you can't have it both ways

If the charge is slander, and the defendant committed slander, and there's sufficient evidence, then the courts must find for the plaintiff.

It's not a super challenging concept.

"Freedom of speech" has a very well-articulated scope and limits.

It doesn't include slander.

I'm not making this stuff up myself.

(05-20-2019 04:20 AM)felix_vagabondo Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 03:45 AM)Barron Wrote:  [...] they're simply exercising their free speech [...] But now you include the possibility of the courts finding them guilty of wrongdoing - sorry but you can't have it both ways

If the charge is slander, and the defendant committed slander, and there's sufficient evidence, then the courts must find for the plaintiff.

It's not a super challenging concept.

"Freedom of speech" has a very well-articulated scope and limits.

It doesn't include slander.

I'm not making this stuff up myself.

Slander and Libel have different meanings. The first is spoken, the second is written. One is legal and one is not. Please don't shift the topic.

Slander: the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

Libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Again, you're wrong. And when you reference the courts you only contradict your original position of private enterprises having the right to publish what they please.

(05-20-2019 05:45 AM)Barron Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 04:20 AM)felix_vagabondo Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 03:45 AM)Barron Wrote:  [...] they're simply exercising their free speech [...] But now you include the possibility of the courts finding them guilty of wrongdoing - sorry but you can't have it both ways

If the charge is slander, and the defendant committed slander, and there's sufficient evidence, then the courts must find for the plaintiff.

It's not a super challenging concept.

"Freedom of speech" has a very well-articulated scope and limits.

It doesn't include slander.

I'm not making this stuff up myself.

Slander and Libel have different meanings. The first is spoken, the second is written. One is legal and one is not. Please don't shift the topic.

Slander: the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

Libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Again, you're wrong. And when you reference the courts you only contradict your original position of private enterprises having the right to publish what they please.

Libel, slander. Whatever man! It doesn't change the truth-value of my argument. They're both crimes that aren't protected by the 1A, which means government can (and does) prohibit it.

Nobody (including private enterprises) is allowed to commit either of these acts.

On the other hand, a private platform can decide not to cover/transmit speech on their platform for any reason or no reason at all. The decision doesn't have to have a specific legal basis.

To put it another way: If I'm a web forum owner, I can kick anyone off that I want to. But if I'm a government official, it's illegal to block specific users from accessing my profile or my website without a legal basis for doing so. It's a public (government-perpetrated) infringement, which is not allowed under the 1st A.

Drudge headline...

"White House to focus on investment in Middle East as part of peace proposal"

Is there any way we could quit investing in a giant sand-box and not depend on that area for oil?

Statements from guys like this Felix are actually very identical to SJW or the most extreme insane libertarians.

You literally support the de-platforming, banning of Roosh on all platforms.

By that measure a private gas and electric company could shut you off because you vote Trump.

By your perception it's all dandy to have banned Roosh off Amazon and various other platforms! Amazon and a few other companies already work like a monopoly. The internet itself creates natural monopolies.

By that measure Roosh had nothing to complain about when being canceled by the payment processors.

Also next no complaint when hotels cancel him, AirBnB bans him, and maybe later bank accounts are closed because he is a terrible male supremacist (literally the definitions).

Such statements can be safely called identical to SJW. And if you as a libertarian believe that this works well without regulation, then you are utterly deluded. The power structure in a real free libertarian model would long have to be broken up. And nevermind that Libartarianism was even financed by the globalists - Ayn Rand was banging a Rockefeller - how this ideology isn't pure globalism Inc is beyond me.

Oh - and your ideas that Somalis would produce the same results as Swedes because "there are good industrious people everywhere" - that is also SJW 101 so far away from reality that you could instantly get a position at Antifa.

@simeon, well said!

This black mirror shit has got to be stopped. The banning and having opposing views minimilized etc has to be reported and companies given significant penalties.

The best case, these companies become free speech havens (song: everly brothers is playing in my head ...”dream dream dream” ....the worst case it continues and haves us approaching black mirror types of environments.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see which groups of immigrants are generally desirable.

Certain countries ban certain sites. A government can ban access to Facebook. Even VPNs can be minimilized. They can issue penalties and fines for visiting Facebook. The best situation is if Facebook and the others had competition. But MySpace fizzled out.

Back onto the Trump Topic - his leading Dem polling opponent:

Humor...

https://joebiden.info/

Scroll down for disclaimer:

This site is political commentary and parody of Joe Biden's Presidential campaign website. This is not Joe Biden's actual website. It is intended for entertainment and political commentary only and is therefore protected under fair use. It is not paid for by any candidate, committee, organization, or PAC. It is a project BY AN American citizen FOR American citizens. Self-Funded.

All things Creepy Commie-loving Corrupt old Joe in one place.