Coronavirus (political)

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by Buffalo Bob

It is going to take a long,long time. The change in people's future spending habits is going to put a lot of businesses out of business. We already have had a lot of restaurants permanently close, many of those that survived so far aren't doing well. I went in a Subway and got a sandwich yesterday, even though the parking lot was jam packed with people who were probably grocery shopping I was the only one in the Subway and the whole time I exited and ate the sandwich in my vehicle no one else went in.

The local McDonald's which is a stone's throw from I-95 is usually jam packed on Friday-Saturday-Sunday, no matter what time of day. When I drove past there at 3pm today on the way to the bank there were two cars in the drive thru line.

I suppose I have to take the good with the bad as it seems on average the Corona-virus adds 5-10 unpaid hours to my business week. Most of that is using Fedex because the post office is no longer reliable. Also customer service from vendors has gotten real bad with most of them. On the good side I do not have to wait in long lines for takeout food. Unfortunately that is not sustainable, as no one in line for food equals out of business soon.

I would think that probably 60 - 75% of "Mom and Pop's" / small businesses are out of business permanently by the time this "ends". What will be left is large big box stores for shopping, corporate owned restaurants, think large chains

But it is also important to remember that many things that are now gone for good were already on their way to going out well before the pandemic. Think places like sears, AMC theaters, etc.... It's easy for a business to blame the virus now for going OB when even before the lockdowns, they may have survived two or three more months tops....

[mooby]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

People are so split on the issue, even without the bots.

A lot of my Democrat friends want a long term shutdown, until a vaccine is developed. They don't seem to know, or care, about the economic consequences, and in fact over the past couple of days i have even been accused of not being a "real" democrat because i have been vocal about the lockdowns doing more harm than good.

One of my best friends told me that straight up the only way to get Joe Biden elected would be if we could destroy the country and the economy. So i was accused that by supporting a desire to reopen America, i was supporting Trump.

Maybe this is the small minority of Democrats, but i'm not sure. Theres an awful lot of people right now hoping America stays shut down for good.

Yes, like me. Death to America. Communism rules. Suck it Reagan.

[SunnySide]

I received my covid stimulus money. Dont think it was the right amount but close enough.

[MTK]

How nuts is it that we have to fact check the President

President threatens to close social media platforms after accusing Twitter of ‘stifling free speech’ for correcting his post

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by MTK

How nuts is it that we have to fact check the President

President threatens to close social media platforms after accusing Twitter of ‘stifling free speech’ for correcting his post

Hard to have a "Dictatorship" if everyone is questioning you and lives.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by MTK

How nuts is it that we have to fact check the President

President threatens to close social media platforms after accusing Twitter of ‘stifling free speech’ for correcting his post

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech............. Benjamin Franklin .

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by MTK

How nuts is it that we have to fact check the President

President threatens to close social media platforms after accusing Twitter of ‘stifling free speech’ for correcting his post

He erodes the standards of the Office of the President to which we've grown accustomed. He doesn't live up to some very basic minimum standards and too many Americans are too poorly versed in civics to recognize it.

[SolidSnake84]

Well, my take on this, not being a Trump supporter, is that even lying is still "free speech", so if any company, Facebook, Twitter, or whomever is stifling that speech, that is probably not a good thing.

I also don't think that a private company should be the one who is deciding if information is true or false. I think its censorship either way you look at it, and that itself, IMO, is not good.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

Well, my take on this, not being a Trump supporter, is that even lying is still "free speech", so if any company, Facebook, Twitter, or whomever is stifling that speech, that is probably not a good thing.

I also don't think that a private company should be the one who is deciding if information is true or false. I think its censorship either way you look at it, and that itself, IMO, is not good.

The key part of your sentence is in bold above.

This is no different than a Christian bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.

When you sign up to use their platform, you agree to use it by their rules. If it was a government office putting limits on Trump's free speech, then we'd have an issue.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by mooby

The key part of your sentence is in bold above.

This is no different than a Christian bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.

When you sign up to use their platform, you agree to use it by their rules. If it was a government office putting limits on Trump's free speech, then we'd have an issue.

Its a bit for complicated imo.

A bakery or a hotel is "open to the public" and under interstate commerce clause and civil rights laws, a store "open to the general public" cannot discriminate or deny service based on race, religion, gender etc. A bakery open to the public is clearly subject to federal laws and regulations regarding constitutional rights. (whether "sexual identity" is a protected class is up for debate and how that parlays with religious freedom is the difficult issue with the bakery cases)

Twitter - what the hell is it? Its obviously not a brick and mortar motel in Florida. Perhaps it could be regulated if it is considered a publicly necessary utility like railroads were back in the day or like energy or water etc.

Just a few years ago, the FCC labeled the "internet" as a public utility and thus subject to federal regulations. Without reading up on it, i think they really wanted to regulate the wires/towers etc i.e. the ability to provide internet.

I just dont see how "twitter" can be considered a public utility. Posting your thoughts arent vital and necessary to society. There are many other platforms to post your thoughts so its not like this is a monopoly as compared to Cox/verizon owning all the fiber cables in a certain part of the country.

----------------------

Twitter can do what ever it wants and thinks is in the best interest of its company and shareholders, imo.

[Buffalo Bob]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Its a bit for complicated imo.

A bakery or a hotel is "open to the public" and under interstate commerce clause and civil rights laws, a store "open to the general public" cannot discriminate or deny service based on race, religion, gender etc. A bakery open to the public is clearly subject to federal laws and regulations regarding constitutional rights. (whether "sexual identity" is a protected class is up for debate and how that parlays with religious freedom is the difficult issue with the bakery cases)

.

I agree with the Christian bakery because it was a custom specialty item. I also believe the gay couple singled them out, knowing full well they would be denied.

When I lived in California I had a lesbian couple who were close friends. They pretty much knew what local businesses were owned by gay people. I am sure that gay couple in Colorado could have easily found a gay friendly bakery.

I personally refused someone service based on their beliefs a couple decades ago in California. A guy handed me a concept drawing of a custom truck grille ornament. He asked how much to make him one. It wasn't hard to notice it had a pair of swastikas on it. My response to him wasn't pleasant.

They way I look at it I did the same thing as the Christian bakery. I refused to make someone a specialty item, because I disagreed with their beliefs. Of course I don't think any court in the land would award damages to a Nazi.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

Well, my take on this, not being a Trump supporter, is that even lying is still "free speech", so if any company, Facebook, Twitter, or whomever is stifling that speech, that is probably not a good thing.

I also don't think that a private company should be the one who is deciding if information is true or false. I think its censorship either way you look at it, and that itself, IMO, is not good.

It's not a free speech violation unless the government is the one suppressing the speech. Twitter cannot suppress anybody's right to free speech, but they can tell you what they're willing to accept on their platform.

If you don't like their terms, it's not a violation of your freedoms because of this simple fact: you are entirely free to start your own social media platform and say whatever you want.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Facebook, Twitter, IG etc. are all based in the bay area/silicon valley. The liberal echo chamber capital of the country. So if you're a conservative and you choose to use those apps, you're doing that in full acceptance of that knowledge. So there is no point in complaining about it. I haven't read what exactly is in Trumps executive order but in general more government is a negative to me, so I'm most likely against it.

If conservatives feel they're getting censored or what not, then stop using it. If millions of people stop using them that's how you effect change how it should be done. $$$ controls everything.

In general, I hope people of all parties aren't using social media as the basis for their views anyways.

[MTK]

^ yup

And it's important to note that fact checking is not censoring. None of this posts have been deleted or altered.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by MTK

^ yup

And it's important to note that fact checking is not censoring. None of this posts have been deleted or altered.

Seems some people at FOX agree with you............


https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/fox-n...025416140.html


Neil Cavuto on Thursday reeled over President Donald Trump’s attempt to crack down on Twitter because it offered a fact-check on his tweets. The Fox News host said Trump’s claims could be characterized as an “outright lie” and deserved to be checked.

Earlier, Trump signed an executive order designed to lessen liability protections for social media sites. It was an apparent punishment for Twitter after it flagged his tweets that said mail-in voting would be “substantially fraudulent.” Twitter also provided a collection of reports debunking his assertions.

Trump decried the move as “stifling free speech” and, at Thursday’s signing, threatened to shut down Twitter if his lawyers could find a way.

Cavuto expressed concern that, “whatever your opinions on the left or right,” it was significant that the president saw fit to try to regulate or even shut down Twitter for correcting his misinformation.

“He was being policed on that because he was wrong. He was being policed on that because he said millions of ‘illegals’ were getting ballots when that simply was not the case,” Cavuto said. “So this isn’t a left-right issue. That was not the case. That was a wrong fact, that was a misstatement. Some have said it was an outright lie.”

Cavuto also broke down Trump’s “outrageous comments” suggesting MSNBC host Joe Scarborough had killed somebody, referring to a vile conspiracy theory Trump has embraced in an effort to debase his outspoken media critic.

“That was something too that had to be fact-checked. It wasn’t just a left or right thing here. That was something that was incumbent upon anyone to check comments that were deemed outrageous,” he said.