The Republican Utopia

[RedDenver]

22 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

To complete the analogy - propaganda machines and guns are both tools of warfare. Soundbites (in support of the Enemy) and bullets are the items necessary for them to work. 

Ships, trains, farms, factories, etc, etc are all necessary tools of warfare. That doesn't mean they are equally necessary or dangerous.

 

22 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

In the past, there was very small chance a soundbite spoken in the United States would be used by a foreign enemy to support their efforts against ourselves or our allies. War has changed. Tulsi Gabbard insisting Putin was right or Tucker saying he hoped Putin wins and Russian propaganda machines making those clips go viral could be even more deadly than a bullet if that language was utilized as a means to justify war. 

Do you think propaganda kills people or the bullets kill people? Propaganda enables the bullets to be used but it's still the bullets doing the killing.

 

22 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Let's say hypothetically, the United States was thinking about going to war. In the US, Congress must declare war. Congress is split 50-50 on shaky grounds for war. Then the potential enemy's leading propogandist and several elected officials come out and say they support the US's position and that there is truth to the intelligence that was being used to make the case for war. This propaganda was circulated among congress, and convinced 10% of congressmen to switch and vote for war and war is declared. Another guy gave the United States 100 Bullets.

 

Who committed treason, the guy who gave the US 100 bullets to use against his country or the guy who's soundbite (which he produced knowing it would be used by US propogandists) ultimately led to the declaration of war? 

 

What do you think would be responsible for more deaths. 100 bullets given to the enemy, or the ten 10 second sound bites that led to war being declared in the first place? 

The 100 bullets. Without the bullets, the propaganda is decidedly less dangerous or deadly. Imagine a war with tons of propaganda and no bullets vs a war with tons of bullets and no propaganda.

 

But you're making a fallacy here that propaganda is a thing that can be easily recognized and not mischaracterized accidentally or deliberately. Your own example could easily be that anti-propaganda laws or rhetoric were used to silenced those who were speaking out against war - same result of going to war. That would not have happened if we had freedom of speech. There's a risk of propaganda causing a war and a risk of causing war by trying to silence "propaganda". Bullets however are directly supplying the enemy with weapons.

[BigRedBuster]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Do you think propaganda kills people or the bullets kill people? Propaganda enables the bullets to be used but it's still the bullets doing the killing.

 

I 100% believe propaganda ultimately kills people.  Look at the Russian army.  Most of them wouldn't be there if they weren't told they were going to fight Nazi's in Ukraine.  That has killed thousands of Russian soldiers and many Ukrainian innocent people.

 

I will guarantee you Putin is playing clips of Tucker to motivate his troops.

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I 100% believe propaganda ultimately kills people.  Look at the Russian army.  Most of them wouldn't be there if they weren't told they were going to fight Nazi's in Ukraine.  That has killed thousands of Russian soldiers and many Ukrainian innocent people.

 

I will guarantee you Putin is playing clips of Tucker to motivate his troops.

Sure. But like I said, propaganda enables the bullets to be used but it's still the bullets doing the killing.

 

Note that this is in the context of whether someone should be charged with treason for propaganda vs today where it has to be more direct aid like supplying the enemy with bullets.

[Scarlet]

Did somebody say hypocrisy?

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

Sure. But like I said, propaganda enables the bullets to be used but it's still the bullets doing the killing.

 

Note that this is in the context of whether someone should be charged with treason for propaganda vs today where it has to be more direct aid like supplying the enemy with bullets.

I don't know how I feel about actually charging someone with treason for propaganda.  

 

I think for me, one thing that would send it over the edge to DEFINITELY, would be if you could prove someone like Tucker was actively working with a Russian in some way to plot and plan what he is doing and saying.

If he's just being a total idiot saying the things he's saying, then it becomes much more difficult.  In this case, I don't have a problem with the public saying he's committing treason.  They don't have to prove it.  There needs to be extreme pushback on the crap he's doing.

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

Did somebody say hypocrisy?

Good Lord.  The minute I even try to think this piece of crap might do the right thing.....he turns around and proves me wrong.

[BigRedBuster]

Good Lord.....when are Republicans going to realize how f#&%ing stupid this proves they are?

 

After this, no other questions for the witness is necessary.  Witness is dismissed on the grounds that YOU'RE A f#&%ING IDIOT!!!

 

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

What was the purpose of the question?

Lol. Come on. The answer to that question at least hints to where you might lean on future cases involved with trans people, etc. Suggesting that it’s a question that shouldn’t of been asked is ridiculous. If you want to argue that you didn’t like how it was asked, fine.

[B.B. Hemingway]

2 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

The problem with the question is, in the current day climate, she cannot give an answer that won’t trigger somebody. Therefore it is not fair. On top of that it is not important no matter how topical in society. I cannot think of a single legal issue that would involve the SC and that it would matter if it was a man or woman or any of the myriad possibilities of genders or sexual preferences. What a person is or isn’t should not matter one iota to a SC justice.

 

Maybe I could be persuaded to change my opinion if you gave me an example of a case they might hear in which it does matter.

 

I will agree her answer was not optimal, seeking a biologist. She could have shut them down on the line of questioning a little better but she shouldn’t have to. The thing is, that is much more of problem for the people asking the loaded question. Like I said, no answer she could give would satisfy everyone.

You don’t think the Supreme Court might eventually  be involved in deciding if men can continue to compete against women in athletic competition?

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Lol. Come on. The answer to that question at least hints to where you might lean on future cases involved with trans people, etc. Suggesting that it’s a question that shouldn’t of been asked is ridiculous. If you want to argue that you didn’t like how it was asked, fine.

So, it's a litmus test.

 

Something that both sides claim the don't do.  

[B.B. Hemingway]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, it's a litmus test.

 

Something that both sides claim the don't do.  

It’s pretty clear that’s what these things actually are, yes.

[RedDenver]

36 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I don't know how I feel about actually charging someone with treason for propaganda.  

 

I think for me, one thing that would send it over the edge to DEFINITELY, would be if you could prove someone like Tucker was actively working with a Russian in some way to plot and plan what he is doing and saying.

If he's just being a total idiot saying the things he's saying, then it becomes much more difficult.  In this case, I don't have a problem with the public saying he's committing treason.  They don't have to prove it.  There needs to be extreme pushback on the crap he's doing.

I agree that using the term "treason" colloquially is fine. The previous discussion was whether propaganda met the constitutional definition of providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Quote

The Court construed the other treason offense authorized by the Constitution similarly narrowly in Cramer v. United States (1945). That case involved another infamous incident in American history: the Nazi Saboteur Affair. Cramer was prosecuted for treason for allegedly helping German soldiers who had surreptitiously infiltrated American soil during World War II. In reviewing Cramer’s treason conviction, the Court explained that a person could be convicted of treason only if he or she adhered to an enemy and gave that enemy “aid and comfort.” As the Court explained: “A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country’s policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy—making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength—but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.” In other words, the Constitution requires both concrete action and an intent to betray the nation before a citizen can be convicted of treason; expressing traitorous thoughts or intentions alone does not suffice.

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/39

[Lorewarn]

2 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Lol. Come on. The answer to that question at least hints to where you might lean on future cases involved with trans people, etc. 

 

I'm struggling to imagine a ruling dependent on if a trans person is a woman or not. 

 

What would be an example of that? 

 

 

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

You don’t think the Supreme Court might eventually  be involved in deciding if men can continue to compete against women in athletic competition?

 

How would you define men in this case? Or, I guess a better question is if you were in her shoes what would your answer have been?

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

It’s pretty clear that’s what these things actually are, yes.

Then it's totally BS question.

[VectorVictor]

20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Good Lord.....when are Republicans going to realize how f#&%ing stupid this proves they are?

 

After this, no other questions for the witness is necessary.  Witness is dismissed on the grounds that YOU'RE A f#&%ING IDIOT!!!

 

 

 

That's just it--Republicans want stupid now because it panders directly to their most active voting base--the (willfully) ignorant white, uneducated voter. 

 

While you have some people still being respectable in the GOP, like Cheney, you have people that have to pander to the LCDs of the world to stay politically viable.