Discussion Should the USA become a Theocracy? To all Religious Republicans here. Yes or NO?

[soulcougher73]

Do you ignore radical elements of leftism as irrelevant to your beliefs, or do you embrace it all?

Radical left does not have 54% dem support. They are lucky to have 3% probably.

 

[HomerJS]

I didn't think there were more than a few of those on this site. Of those, it would seem logical that sectarianism and patriotism would prevent too many from wanting to institute any sort of theocracy, most especially because it would mean the abolishment of the First Amendment. The only quasi-religious group that can be found openly hating on free speech is the censorious far left.

Really? Second place candidate for the Republican nomination attends a church where it is preached gay people should be killed.

Now, tell me that again. Who on the left comes within the same universe?

 

[VRAMdemon]

Judge Orders Biden Officials to Limit Contact With Social-Media Companies

The preliminary injunction says the Biden administration’s policing of social media likely violated the First Amendment.

www.wsj.com

I'm assuming this means that that Court is saying that say - the Surgeon General - can't tell Facebook, etc that that post about the covid vaccine making you fucking magnetic and installing a tracking microchip or drinking bleach will cure you of a virus is a Big Fat Lie? Speech which is extremely likely to cause harm/kill people should not be protected and along with using the First Amendment as a club to beat the country to death. The SCOTUS seems to disagree with me, but obviously their rulings are/will be harmful.

What sounds unconstitutional? The government asking e.g. TwitFace to take down some deliberate misinformation, or this judge telling the governmenet they can’t make that request?

We all know that the conservatives are just whining because they got bitch slapped for lying and supporting lies that could kill people. What seems far more important to me is that the judge granted them a preliminary injunction that effectively states that the U.S. federal government is not allowed to do its job unless it involves “national security threats, criminal activity or voter suppression”.

Why a preliminary injunction? That should only be given when there is firm evidence that future harm of the same nature by the defendants is likely. Does the government even admit that they did anything against the First Amendment? Not that I can see at all.

The Defendants argue the Federal Government promoted necessary and responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by a deadly pandemic and hostile foreign assaults on critical election infrastructure. They further contend that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in social-media companies changing their rules in order to fight related disinformation. Finally, Defendants argue the social-media companies’ desire to make money from advertisers resulted in change to their efforts to combat disinformation.

This quoted paragraph is hand-waved away by the decision from this idiot judge. First, to him, the government is obviously guilty. Second, reading between the lines though he comes pretty close to saying it out loud - That these same right-wingers/nutjobs are so likely to keep on lying about stuff that the government is sure to do it again. A preliminary injection saying the government cannot perform a wide variety of unspecified actions in the normal process of doing its job is beyond belief. Is there any precedent for this at all?

The administration is/ was merely asking social media sites to consider removing misinformation. Pointing it out and requesting moderators to take a look at it. They (social media platforms) have always been perfectly well within their rights to say, “Nope fuck off, we good.”

How is that restricting free speech?

 

[thraashman]

Radical left does not have 54% dem support. They are lucky to have 3% probably.

Exactly. Who are the most radical elected Democrats? The Squad perhaps? And not one of them is as radical as the pedophile Gaetz, the prostitute Boebert, the white supremacist Gosar, the military hating Tuberville, the terrorist supporting Hawley, the COVID conspiracist Ron Johnson, the sexual abuse enabler Jordan (who also holds a position of high power in the GOP), or the Q Anoner MTG (who has Speaker McCarthy on a leash).

Note: I could have kept going for a long, long time listing those more radical in the GOP but I didn't want to type out names and blurbs for over 200 people.

 

[Pens1566]

Exactly. Who are the most radical elected Democrats? The Squad perhaps? And not one of them is as radical as the pedophile Gaetz, the prostitute Boebert, the white supremacist Gosar, the military hating Tuberville, the terrorist supporting Hawley, the COVID conspiracist Ron Johnson, the sexual abuse enabler Jordan (who also holds a position of high power in the GOP), or the Q Anoner MTG (who has Speaker McCarthy on a leash).

Note: I could have kept going for a long, long time listing those more radical in the GOP but I didn't want to type out names and blurbs for over 200 people.

Exactly.

And if you define AOC as "radical" you're not really being honest. Practical/populist is more like it, but that is radical to some of the fuckwits in the GQP.

 

[Jaskalas]

anyone who thinks this is even a remote possibility should either write fiction or seek therapy.

This is your failing. Prime example, right there.
To pretend that America is so divine, under your tribe, that such a thing is unimaginable.

They already demonstrated the cult behind DJT.
My local MAGA wanted a military coup to keep the President in office. As the "rightful winner" of the 2020 election.
Fiction, remote possibility?

Somebody has not been paying attention. Or is already so wrapped up in said cult, that they cannot see the forest from the trees.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm assuming this means that that Court is saying that say - the Surgeon General - can't tell Facebook, etc that that post about the covid vaccine making you fucking magnetic and installing a tracking microchip or drinking bleach will cure you of a virus is a Big Fat Lie? Speech which is extremely likely to cause harm/kill people should not be protected and along with using the First Amendment as a club to beat the country to death. The SCOTUS seems to disagree with me, but obviously their rulings are/will be harmful.

What sounds unconstitutional? The government asking e.g. TwitFace to take down some deliberate misinformation, or this judge telling the governmenet they can’t make that request?

We all know that the conservatives are just whining because they got bitch slapped for lying and supporting lies that could kill people. What seems far more important to me is that the judge granted them a preliminary injunction that effectively states that the U.S. federal government is not allowed to do its job unless it involves “national security threats, criminal activity or voter suppression”.

Why a preliminary injunction? That should only be given when there is firm evidence that future harm of the same nature by the defendants is likely. Does the government even admit that they did anything against the First Amendment? Not that I can see at all.



This quoted paragraph is hand-waved away by the decision from this idiot judge. First, to him, the government is obviously guilty. Second, reading between the lines though he comes pretty close to saying it out loud - That these same right-wingers/nutjobs are so likely to keep on lying about stuff that the government is sure to do it again. A preliminary injection saying the government cannot perform a wide variety of unspecified actions in the normal process of doing its job is beyond belief. Is there any precedent for this at all?

The administration is/ was merely asking social media sites to consider removing misinformation. Pointing it out and requesting moderators to take a look at it. They (social media platforms) have always been perfectly well within their rights to say, “Nope fuck off, we good.”

How is that restricting free speech?

Amusingly enough the judge is the one in violation of the first amendment here as he is saying the government may not speak by *asking* sites to take down posts that violate their terms of service, a request that they are free to refuse as evidenced by the many times they refused them.

This is yet another clownish ruling that will be overturned but Congress seriously needs to get the judiciary back under control. As it exists now we routinely have the same cast of clowns hijacking national policy with rulings that would get an F for a 1L.

 

[woolfe9998]

Basic truth touches a nerve here as always. Question yourselves, I have no interest in debating you. I replied to the OP, not the rest of you. OP, feel free to PM me if you want to continue this conversation, I'm not watching this thread.

Chickenshit.

 

[fskimospy]

Chickenshit.

I just think it's funny that he publicly posts on a discussion board and then announces his intent not to discuss it with anyone.

He could have just as easily DMed the OP to begin with but it seems like he wanted some performative martyrdom or whatever.

 

[woolfe9998]

I just think it's funny that he publicly posts on a discussion board and then announces his intent not to discuss it with anyone.

He could have just as easily DMed the OP to begin with but it seems like he wanted some performative martyrdom or whatever.

I follow a simple rule. When someone is asked to supply evidence to support a point they've made, and refuse to do so, they have no such evidence. We see it time and time again here.

 

[fskimospy]

I follow a simple rule. When someone is asked to supply evidence to support a point they've made, and refuse to do so, they have no such evidence. We see it time and time again here.

Yes, some people are here to discuss and some people are here to fight and that's a very helpful shortcut to know who is who.

 

[HomerJS]

I c

He's a puppet. At this point, Biden's political philosophy has no meaning. He can't even reliably read a teleprompter.

Aren't you the same people who criticized Obama for READING a teleprompter??

 

[HomerJS]

Back to the OP again, it's funny how we can make so much out of such a preposterous idea, like the US will become Iran? Really? Or like Handmaid's Tale? So much fever dream. Orwell's 1984 hits a little closer to home, if you ask me.

Who would have thought a political party would attempt a coup against its own government but here we are.

 

[HomerJS]

Dog whistle always amused me as a political trope, like if it was not aimed at you, why did you hear it so well?

Interesting watching you downplay/deny the existence of the dog whistle when your party invented the damn thing.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Amusingly enough the judge is the one in violation of the first amendment here as he is saying the government may not speak by *asking* sites to take down posts that violate their terms of service, a request that they are free to refuse as evidenced by the many times they refused them.

This is yet another clownish ruling that will be overturned but Congress seriously needs to get the judiciary back under control. As it exists now we routinely have the same cast of clowns hijacking national policy with rulings that would get an F for a 1L.

The irony is that Donald Trump signed an executive order that attacked social media companies for labeling his communications as false or misleading, and in his words it was to “defend free speech”. The courts said nothing at the time. But what he did seems to be a clear violation along the lines of what this federal judge is attacking the Biden administration over.

Trump signs executive order targeting social media companies

President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting social media companies on Thursday, days after Twitter called two of his tweets "potentially misleading."

www.cnn.com

The companies in question were already committed to blocking harmful false information. For the government to say, “Hey, this is harmful false information” isn’t telling them what to do. IIRC, most of the posts that were flagged for “lying about the election” were flagged because they contained indisputable misinformation aka ... promoting incorrect dates and voting locations or they were outright scams run by individuals posing as election officials. The gov. should be forbidden asking them to remove those blatant lies and frauds? BS.

Also .... consider the Tide Pod Challenge...

Let’s say the CDC started getting lots of reports of teenagers in ERs needing stomach pumps after watching funny Tiktoks in which influencers ate Tide Pods with no deleterious effects. The CDC calls TikTok and says, hey, kids are risking death, this video that says Tide Pods are safe to eat is a violation of your terms of service, can you take a look at it? Has the CDC violated the first amendment rights of the influencer who made that claim?

Actually ....Only if Tide pod challenges were a left/right issue, of course. If conservatives suddenly decided to inject themselves with bleach, take horse dewormer medication or eat Tide pods, then you couldn’t ask TikTok to take it down. At least, that’s my takeaway from this dumb ass ruling.

 

[MrSquished]

Maybe if moonbeam talks to this guy, he might become slightly sane. Wheres the moonbeam bat signal to shine into the sky?

 

[Stokely]

I have more than a few in my family, and they'd be ecstatic if this country became a theocracy. Hell they think it is now.

Thanks to that attitude, I'm far less tolerant toward religion in general. If people would keep their faith in their own undies where it belongs, I'd say fine. As things are, they don't and I consider organized religion the enemy. Not much I can do personally but avoid religious people and companies when I find out what they are about, and vote for the party that is less religious overall. Still sucks that even Democrats feel compelled to spout what their faith is, I'm sure by now there might be some atheists in office but it's probably still something they have to overcome.

 

[gothuevos]

Now imagine what they think should happen to you or me.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675185853239369729

 

[Vic]

Meanwhile, Republican Senator Hawley pushes out a fake quote from Patrick Henry to make it look like the Founding Fathers supported theocracy (which they were clearly against) and promote the GOP's Christian Nationalist agenda.

Josh Hawley Busted After Using Fake Founding Father Quote To Push Religious Agenda

The Missouri senator gets called out on Twitter over a quote he falsely attributed to Patrick Henry.

news.yahoo.com

 

[woolfe9998]

Meanwhile, Republican Senator Hawley pushes out a fake quote from Patrick Henry to make it look like the Founding Fathers supported theocracy (which they were clearly against) and promote the GOP's Christian Nationalist agenda.

Josh Hawley Busted After Using Fake Founding Father Quote To Push Religious Agenda

The Missouri senator gets called out on Twitter over a quote he falsely attributed to Patrick Henry.

news.yahoo.com

They'll never correct this on Fox News, so it's now a fact. According to every nutball in the country.

 

[hal2kilo]

Now imagine what they think should happen to you or me.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675185853239369729

I did NAZI that coming.

 

[HomerJS]

Sound the alarm. Everyone seems to know this is a bad idea except Republican politicians.

Oklahoma parents, faith leaders and education group sue to stop US's first public religious school

A group of parents, faith leaders and a nonprofit public education group are suing to stop Oklahoma from funding what would be the nation's first religious public charter school.

apnews.com

 

[HomerJS]

Theocracy in full force.

Louisiana law requiring 'In God We Trust' displayed at all public schools goes into effect

A new law in Louisiana mandates "In God We Trust" be displayed in every classroom of public schools across the state.

www.foxnews.com