RedDenver

I'll believe it when I see it.

Trump and his allies are already starting to talk about how he should get an additional two years as President because of "reparations" for being investigated. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/06/claiming-two-years-his-presidency-were-stolen-trump-suggests-hes-owed-overtime/ If the Dems (and Repubs for that matter) can't do their duty to uphold the Constitution, then America is done. This is the time when it matters, not some theoretical election over a year away. And if you think the GOP/Trump is going to attempt a coup after the election, then it is definitely the time to act now to establish the rights, responsibilities, and authority of Congress.

If the Executive Branch is unchecked, then we won't survive Trump. The coup will be over before there's an election.

If they don't enforce the powers of Congress, then the Executive Branch can simply run wild, which isn't a democracy either.

testing Yep, I'm definitely winning that Heisman as a DT. SUH WAS ROBBED!!!

Dinnertime!

There's a ton of kids programming on Netflix. Took me a while to finally ween the kids off Nick Jr. Amazon Prime has some free kids stuff from Nick, but the only one my kids watch now is Bubble Guppies.

They won't hold him in contempt. The Dems have no spine.

And now Obama admin claiming executive privilege comes back to bite the Dems. Why is there even executive privilege? We need more transparency in our government.

yum

That's when the GOP will turn on Trump to save their own hides. And the hypocrisy of Sasse and the like will be small potatoes compared to the about-face McConnell and Graham will attempt.

Queue

k

I've had the Roku 3 for years now and it's been great (actually I have 3 of them). I haven't used the newer ones, but I'll buy Roku again based on the good experience I've had.

I think you "dat"

It's the results of an opinion poll. The chart is the percentage who say Trump is favoring <insert group> too much. For example, 42% of Jewish respondents say Trump is favoring Israelis too much, 6% say he's favoring Palestinians too much, 47% think it's the right balance, and 4% had no answer.

"Always"? The internet is only a few decades old, and social media platforms are only about a decade or so old.

That's fine, but it's also an extremely simplistic view of the world. First, you're making the gigantic leap in logic that censoring hate speech results in fewer mass murders. Second, you're making the case that an authoritarian government should be able to censor you as long as they prevent your murder, which is anathema to everything that our country was founded on. Life is far better IMO when we have more freedoms but run the tiny risk of bad things happening as a result of those freedoms than losing those freedoms and having a tinier chance of bad things happening.

We'll just have to disagree that censorship is a lesser evil. Censorship is not theoretical, look at Russia and China among many others to see it affecting billions of people every day. And while mass murders may be happening, it's also theoretical that they wouldn't have happened with censorship.

There's a few different takes going on at once. I was originally trying to ask whether people were concerned about private entities having a large control over public discourse given that those private entities can ban/censor anyone for any reason. That evolved to a debate between knapplc and I about whether hate speech should be banned.

What isn't a law? The article is about anti-hate speech laws in Europe. I'm trying to describe why anti-hate speech isn't a good idea, from the conclusion of the article:

I've never seen this evidence either, so I'll concede the point. It'd be extremely difficult to control for all the variables in order to gather such evidence, so I doubt we'll ever have any evidence either way. Again, you're avoiding the main argument against this: the slippery slope of censorship. For example: In Europe, Hate Speech Laws are Often Used to Suppress and Punish Left-Wing Viewpoints

That's evidence for censoring Trump, but this isn't evidence for censoring any of the people that got censored. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not asking if private entities are allowed to do that currently, which they clearly are. But rather a different question: should we be concerned about the twin affects of private entities controlling so much of the public discourse AND being able to censor that discourse? I don't agree. Suppressing hate speech might actually lead to more violence than letting it be aired. Plus you've opened the door to the slippery slope of censorship, which is way worse than the hate speech. The best way to address hate speech is with speech opposing that hate.