2020 Election

If Trump is in power him and Kushner will keep borrowing Billions from the Muslims.

 

No, I'm saying you don't have a right to assign yourself the role of school teacher to your political opponents, and to caste authentic political disagreements as simply their ignorance, which you will cure with the balm of "education", which takes the form of your exercising power over them. By some estimates, the Chinese governement has sent more than 1 million Uyghers to "re-education" camps, "...aimed at changing the political thinking of detainees, their identities, and their religious beliefs" (from Wikipedia). I'm against "re-education" camps because they are obviously a tool for crushing political dissent, euphemistically described as "re-education" camps. Does that make me against education? Does that mean I think "education ends and should end once you leave school"?

Assigning your political opponents the role of school children, and yourself the role of teacher, is nothing another than the crushing of dissent, all the more egregious because you try to disguise it as the workings of a benevolent and impartial institution entitled to exercise authority over it's unwilling "students".

Yes I have a counter argument, you've just completely ignored it.

I have debated you honestly. I've come to realize that this is a mistake. You slander me here. What "propaganda" have I spread?

...and again

No, I did not say this. I said if someone says a thing once, and simply repeats themselves rather than defending their position, I think it's ok to delete the repeated content, but not the original post.

I've been putting up counter arguments, you've just been ignoring them

Ok, my premise is that if one party applies rules of debate designed to crush dissent in a forum of debate, dissent will probably be crushed, but that this does not represent honest debate.

I accept that at least in the US, corporations regulate the government more than government regulates the corporations. I am not in favor of this. Some of those corporations, such as media corporations, aggressively promote socially left-wing ideology. To say that some element of a society is not in line with left-wing ideology does not mean that the "right wing are the dominant power in many countries including the US and UK", (a point which you will not concede), nor does this justify censoring your political opponents.

Nowhere did I argue this. You may have whatever comeback you like. Deleting an original instance of what your political opponents declare, and not simply repeats of the same content, can not be reasonably construed as a "comeback" rather than censorship.

Is there anyone other than yourself that holds the opinion that I have debated dishonestly here? And who is the "we" to which you refer?

I'm done with this. If no points will ever be conceded, and no one will be persuaded, I don't see the point of this. You may have the last word if you like Balbus.

 

No one is debating that HF has a legal right to censor content. What I debate is that censoring content deemed politically objectionable is part of an open and honest forum of debate.

In your opinion, not mine.

I don't object to the censoring of insults, only to the censoring to elements of honest debate.

I think there is a very limited amount of censorship that could be reasonably considered an element of protecting free speech, such as censoring insults, threats, doxing, and the like. I don't think one can say censoring an idea someone doesn't like is really protecting free speech.

One of the most honest things HF has ever done was to drop "a free speech site" as it's tag line.

In the same spirit, how about renaming the politics forum "left-wing echo chamber"? It would prevent confusion and wasted posts, and we'd probably all get along better.

 

@newbie-one, I see where you are coming from, but if all this is about what I think it's about then there is a point to be heard on both sides of that coin...

& I have tried to fuel debate personally. But usually it's some weird insult about party, politician, or halfway directed at me. I'm sure if we had time and patience for such trivia I could provide several examples.

The point of saying this is that sometimes it feels sort of like a "right attacking left" scenario, if that's what you guys are talking about - I didn't read through the discussion.

There should be intelligent discussion on both sides, but it feels like I'm providing insight and it's being met with something entirely different coming from interests not of a political nature, but fueled by something less innocent.

 

Seems to me there's been little viewpoint censorship on HF to date. I don't know whether they're gearing up for a crackdown or not, but so far I think they've been pretty open minded.

But that would be inaccurate to describe the offerings of Six-eyed Shaman, VG, Varmint, Onceburned, Piney, Orison, WP, etc.

 

You've never impressed me as being someone who's interested in "discussing" anything, as opposed to sloganeering, name-calling ("DemonRats"), and meme posting. Coming from you, probably the very worst offender on HF, this statement seems ironically hypocritical.

 

newbie

I’m not the school teacher here but I am the moderator which is more like being a student volunteer hall monitor.

While in debate if anything people [should] take on the role of both teacher and pupil - in that we are trying to teach and learn.

Thing is as you seem to admit there are those that are unwilling to debate, who can be disruptive and I’m sorry I don’t want those people here.

There is no re-education camp, no torture, no brain washing, this is just an online forum not a gulag and yes there are rules and a polite notice to ask people to not abuse the purpose of this forum and that reluctantly there maybe consequences for those that do not or are disruptive.

If someone posts something one time without then debating it, that could be seen as an accident but more than that and it is a trend and when actually pulled up on it and that notice is not taken then that is a breach of the rule about debate and any future posts may be removed. This is not a place to push out propaganda. To allow such people to continue to post statements that they refuse to debate even when they might be flawed or lies would destroy this as a debating forum.

Your argument seems to be that you agree such a rule should be in place it’s just that you disagree with the rule.

That if someone refuses to debate as in refusing to defend their views and statements that is wrong and should be dealt with - so honest debate can take place - but if such rules are applied then that is the crushing of dissent and doesn’t allow honest debate.

Can you understand why I find your stance rather confusing?

 

Newbie

you seem to accept free market capitalism is a right wing ideology you seem to agree that the UK and US are in the main dominated by this ideology but you reject the promise that the UK and US are dominated by the right wing ideas

But through what mechanisms does wealth direct the control and dominance of governance?

Do they support left wing political groups and lobbyists that call for increased regulation and tax rises on wealth or do they in the main support right wing political groups and lobbyists that do the opposite?

Can you back that up?

I mean as this article points out the majority of news outlets are not exactly run by people with a left wing or even progressive slant.

These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies

And there are a large number of wealth sponsored right wing think tanks that pump out rather dubious and flawed right leaning ‘reports’ and ‘studies’ that often get cited in the media to back up right wing views.

 

"There is one thing Donald Trump indisputably does far better than his opponent in this year’s presidential election, Joe Biden.

Come up with juvenile yet incredibly catchy nicknames.

Actually, I lied. There are at least two things he does better than Sleepy J-, ahem, Mr Biden. And the second one will play a crucial role in determining who wins in November.

I’m talking about fundraising. Mr Trump is astonishingly good at raising money.

The latest reports filed with America’s Federal Election Commission show Mr Biden and the Democratic Party started May with about $US100 million in cash reserves, according to CNN. Mr Trump and the Republican Party, meanwhile, had $255 million.

That is a monstrous advantage, and it’s one the sitting President has thoroughly earned"

Donald Trump’s monstrous money advantage over Joe Biden

 

When people bring up the amounts candidates have raised especially when they seem to celebrate their side having more money than the other it has the implication that in the US elections can be bought and I would ask

Do these people think that is a good thing?

What does it say about a society that many of the citizens in it think elections and the gaining of high office are just commodities that are sold to the highest bidder?

 

Newbie, I can understand what you say when you talk about forced re-education camps. They are a tool of government tyranny. What China is doing to its Muslim population is horrible. I see a war between Democrats and Republicans right here in America, where everyday one is trying to re-educate the other. I listen to AM talk radio where Republican hosts like Buck Sexton and Bill Cunningham are attempting to re-educate American Midwestern agri-business workers an assembly plant automatons with false information. It's a serious problem and is harming American society. It has been coming down the pike for some time.

Anytime someone lectures another concerning a political matter, you'll have the flavor of re-education. Some lecturers will sound like an elementary school teacher, and some like a Southern Baptist Deacon. It would see to me people would want to listen better now and select the proper and sensible political answers so we could save the country. I am one voter who is now amazed at the rate Trump is selling BLM land, rolling back clean air and water rules, pushing bleach, and flooding the swamp with corruption. I will not say anything here about Jeffery Epstein's death, because that would be unfair. You see, until William Barr reveals what he collected as evidence at Jefferey's houses, I'll wait before dishing out judgement.

 

Can't speak for others, but I think it's a bad thing.

 

In April Trump raised $16.3 million. In April Biden raised $66.7 million. I'd say Biden is better at math too.

 

Ok, prove it

 

Trump is fat and will not be re-elected by the electoral college.

 

Why do you want to see trump re-elected? You live in Australia, don't you? His re-election, or not, will not affect you personally.

 

That was a rock solid reply in regards to proving how much campaign funds were raised in April by Geriatric Joe and the third best US President ever

 

Who is in charge of the biggest economy in the world wont affect me personally?

Maybe you should repeat questions like that back to yourself out loud before you click Post Reply

 

Trump is his idea of the macho swaggering blowhard he'd like to be-- id on stick! As for "the biggest economy in the world", he likes the protectionism and the appearance, if sporadic, of toughness toward China. Doin' Australia's work for it! But that was then. Right now, the U.S. economy is in shambles, and it remains to be seen whether all the kings horses and all the king's men can put it back together by election time.
Coronavirus and the 2020 election: A collapsing economy is a disaster for the incumbent
Economy: The coronavirus collapse could break Trump - CNNPolitics
Are Older Voters Turning Away From Trump?
Three pillars of Trump's case for reelection are collapsing all at once