Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[the_gastropod]

I challenge you to drive from KC thru STL to Indy (arguably Columbus) on I-70 and tell me with all the semis that it shouldn't be 3 lanes in each direction for the entirety.  It can be pretty dangerous and frustrating.  I would love for rail to pick up more of the slack so semis didn't populate the roads nearly as much but they're slower and it doesn't seem to be a priority.  So, we're stuck with semis and delivery trucks everywhere putting significant wear and tear on our roads.

The effects of adding more lanes has been studied pretty broadly. It's a little counterintuitive, but because of induced demand, traffic actually increases. You can read about it here: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/06/21/the-science-is-clear-more-highways-equals-more-traffic-why-are-dots-still-ignoring-it/

So what are some other options for solutions? Well, you alluded to freight rail. That'd help reduce the number of shipping trucks. Passenger rail would help reduce the number of cars on the highways. These things are "impossible" almost entirely due to politics, and not much else. There is a lot more moneyed interest in perpetuating the status quo: oil companies, car manufacturers, road construction companies, etc. that all lobby to prevent real improvements being made.

Not sure why you say the focus on electric vehicles is misplaced.  I mean, we're trending that way both for passenger vehicles and semis but electric vehicles still "use up the road" too albeit with much better emissions.  Americans demand goods in a short amount of time and also like having safe roads that can handle the traffic and flow well.  I don't see those preferences changing (even when most vehicles are electric) significantly as we will always have a good % of Americans that don't live in urban areas of large cities (vs. suburbs, exurbs, towns, rural, etc.).  Americans won't go for more sitting in traffic and slower delivery times for the good of the environment unless there was a major $ incentive to do so and/or the very structure of our suburbs and on down changed drastically.

The car-centric layout in the U.S. is necessarily unsustainable, not only from an environmental vantage point, but also a financial one. Suburbia is a ultimately a Ponzi scheme (https://grist.org/sprawl/2011-06-22-the-american-suburbs-are-a-giant-ponzi-scheme/)

Further expansion of this type of development is unwise. It's past time to face reality, and start building more sustainably.

Plus, the idea that Americans prefer suburban living aren't really true. The US has been trending toward urbanization for a long time now. The most in-demand places to live are walkable cities. The drawback is that they're few and far between, highly in-demand, and therefore expensive. But make no mistake, they're not expensive because they're more expensive to build. They're just not subsidized via the ponzi mechanisms that make suburban living seem affordable to those who live there.

How are you fine with more bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure but are against more roads for vehicles due to "destroying the environment"?  It's the same asphalt, concrete, etc.

There are a few reasons:
1. Think about the utility. How many people use a mile of asphalt on a highway in an hour? What about a mile of sidewalk in any reasonably-walkable city? There are orders of magnitude difference in utility, here.
2. What does the highway asphalt enable? ICE automobiles travel. Sidewalks / bike lanes? carbon-free human-powered transportation.
3. As you recognized earlier, some vehicles cause more wear on streets than others. Which do you expect to last longer / require less maintenance—a road exclusively used by bicycles or one that is used by cars and trucks?

[nereo]

I too wonder if the focus on electric vehicles could be misplaced.

Say an average gas powered car puts out 100 "units" of emissions per year. Just making up the 100 for the example.

An electric car isn't 0 "units" of emissions right? The cost of strip mining land with heavy machinery for the batteries has an emissions impact to it. So does the power used to charge the car. If coal is powering the electric car's battery that seems like a total waste.

How many units of emissions does an electric car put out? Clearly this should get better over time as batter technology improves and if someone could charge their car from their own solar panels same idea. But for now im not sure how much better it actually is, if at all.

not to mention the environmental damage of the land destruction in finding those battery components and the toxicity of those used up batteries. That doesn't effect climate change, but still seems sort of bad for the environment.

This has been studied extensively:  look up "life-cycle carbon footprint" for some very in-depth examination of BEVs vs ICE vehicles.  Short summary; under our current grid BEVs have a much lower carbon footprint than ICE vehicles virtually everywhere on the planet except a few places that rely almost exclusively on coal.  Absolutely every market in the US.  As energy production become cleaner with more renewables (and that is the direction it is headed everywhere) this will only increase.

I do understand windytrail's broader point about not solving climate change with a shift towards a more electfied fleet.  At best we are choosing a 'less bad' option over business as usual (and it is substantially less bad).  But... driving still has a carbon footprint that is much higher than walking or cycling or most mass transit.  Less total miles driven is the ultimate solution.

One thing that's often stuck out to me is how it's almost impossible to remove a road or highway once constructed, even when populations shift.  Throughout much rural America there are large swaths where the population has declined over the last 50 years, but we still have to maintain those roadways because they are now 'baked in' to our infrastructure and someone, somewhere now lives along them.  If we could magically erase all our roads (a-la SimCity) and rebuild them overnight I'm sure we could get by with drastically fewer miles of paved earth.  But we can't, and we are perpetually stuck with the choices made decades ago.  The same is true of what we've done to our watershed over the last two centuries. Too bad...

[ncornilsen]

The emissions from mining those vehicles is offset in 6-16 months... apparently.
https://youmatter.world/en/are-electric-cars-eco-friendly-and-zero-emission-vehicles-26440/

I'd expect that recycling of batters will become common in the future and offset that further. And if democrats would quit tearing out dams and fighting nuclear energy, especially the small scale stuff that's near market ready, it would be even further offset.

As for Biden holding manchin accountable? For what, not being a moonbat?

Why don't we hold Biden accountable?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/images-from-hunter-bidens-laptop-call-into-question-joe-bidens-denial-of-talking-business-with-son

Imagine if this was trump.

[Tyler durden]

I too wonder if the focus on electric vehicles could be misplaced.

Say an average gas powered car puts out 100 "units" of emissions per year. Just making up the 100 for the example.

An electric car isn't 0 "units" of emissions right? The cost of strip mining land with heavy machinery for the batteries has an emissions impact to it. So does the power used to charge the car. If coal is powering the electric car's battery that seems like a total waste.

How many units of emissions does an electric car put out? Clearly this should get better over time as batter technology improves and if someone could charge their car from their own solar panels same idea. But for now im not sure how much better it actually is, if at all.

not to mention the environmental damage of the land destruction in finding those battery components and the toxicity of those used up batteries. That doesn't effect climate change, but still seems sort of bad for the environment.

This has been studied extensively:  look up "life-cycle carbon footprint" for some very in-depth examination of BEVs vs ICE vehicles.  Short summary; under our current grid BEVs have a much lower carbon footprint than ICE vehicles virtually everywhere on the planet except a few places that rely almost exclusively on coal.  Absolutely every market in the US.  As energy production become cleaner with more renewables (and that is the direction it is headed everywhere) this will only increase.

I do understand windytrail's broader point about not solving climate change with a shift towards a more electfied fleet.  At best we are choosing a 'less bad' option over business as usual (and it is substantially less bad).  But... driving still has a carbon footprint that is much higher than walking or cycling or most mass transit.  Less total miles driven is the ultimate solution.

One thing that's often stuck out to me is how it's almost impossible to remove a road or highway once constructed, even when populations shift.  Throughout much rural America there are large swaths where the population has declined over the last 50 years, but we still have to maintain those roadways because they are now 'baked in' to our infrastructure and someone, somewhere now lives along them.  If we could magically erase all our roads (a-la SimCity) and rebuild them overnight I'm sure we could get by with drastically fewer miles of paved earth.  But we can't, and we are perpetually stuck with the choices made decades ago.  The same is true of what we've done to our watershed over the last two centuries. Too bad...

You are spot on.

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better-for-the-environment/

Very interesting article. It lays out step by step in terms of production cost emissions and goes through emissions for the life of a car. In this article it shows a Tesla Model 3 vs a Rav 4.

To make the car its far more carbon intensive to make the Tesla. 12.2 Tons carbon emission to make the tesla vs 7.4 tons to make the Rav 4. This is due to the battery mining etc.

But by the end of each cars life, the tables flip the other way dramatically. After 200k miles drive total carbon emissions of the Tesla come in at 36 tons vs 78 tons for the Rav 4. Awesome. They noted how clearly it matters where and how the Tesla is charged but thats very encouraging. 

[simonsez]

I challenge you to drive from KC thru STL to Indy (arguably Columbus) on I-70 and tell me with all the semis that it shouldn't be 3 lanes in each direction for the entirety.  It can be pretty dangerous and frustrating.  I would love for rail to pick up more of the slack so semis didn't populate the roads nearly as much but they're slower and it doesn't seem to be a priority.  So, we're stuck with semis and delivery trucks everywhere putting significant wear and tear on our roads.

The effects of adding more lanes has been studied pretty broadly. It's a little counterintuitive, but because of induced demand, traffic actually increases. You can read about it here: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/06/21/the-science-is-clear-more-highways-equals-more-traffic-why-are-dots-still-ignoring-it/

So what are some other options for solutions? Well, you alluded to freight rail. That'd help reduce the number of shipping trucks. Passenger rail would help reduce the number of cars on the highways. These things are "impossible" almost entirely due to politics, and not much else. There is a lot more moneyed interest in perpetuating the status quo: oil companies, car manufacturers, road construction companies, etc. that all lobby to prevent real improvements being made.

Not sure why you say the focus on electric vehicles is misplaced.  I mean, we're trending that way both for passenger vehicles and semis but electric vehicles still "use up the road" too albeit with much better emissions.  Americans demand goods in a short amount of time and also like having safe roads that can handle the traffic and flow well.  I don't see those preferences changing (even when most vehicles are electric) significantly as we will always have a good % of Americans that don't live in urban areas of large cities (vs. suburbs, exurbs, towns, rural, etc.).  Americans won't go for more sitting in traffic and slower delivery times for the good of the environment unless there was a major $ incentive to do so and/or the very structure of our suburbs and on down changed drastically.

The car-centric layout in the U.S. is necessarily unsustainable, not only from an environmental vantage point, but also a financial one. Suburbia is a ultimately a Ponzi scheme (https://grist.org/sprawl/2011-06-22-the-american-suburbs-are-a-giant-ponzi-scheme/)

Further expansion of this type of development is unwise. It's past time to face reality, and start building more sustainably.

Plus, the idea that Americans prefer suburban living aren't really true. The US has been trending toward urbanization for a long time now. The most in-demand places to live are walkable cities. The drawback is that they're few and far between, highly in-demand, and therefore expensive. But make no mistake, they're not expensive because they're more expensive to build. They're just not subsidized via the ponzi mechanisms that make suburban living seem affordable to those who live there.

How are you fine with more bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure but are against more roads for vehicles due to "destroying the environment"?  It's the same asphalt, concrete, etc.

There are a few reasons:
1. Think about the utility. How many people use a mile of asphalt on a highway in an hour? What about a mile of sidewalk in any reasonably-walkable city? There are orders of magnitude difference in utility, here.
2. What does the highway asphalt enable? ICE automobiles travel. Sidewalks / bike lanes? carbon-free human-powered transportation.
3. As you recognized earlier, some vehicles cause more wear on streets than others. Which do you expect to last longer / require less maintenance—a road exclusively used by bicycles or one that is used by cars and trucks?

I'm not really arguing against anything you wrote.  Foot/bicycle traffic is superior to vehicle traffic if the same goal of the trip is reached, no argument from me! 

Traffic is not the same as congestion though.  A two lane (one-way) road that carries 15,000 vehicles per days compared to the same road if it was a one-lane that carried 12,000 has more vehicular traffic but I'm guessing the congestion would be less.  Give me roads that flow (side note: a well-constructed roundabout with no traffic lights makes me giddy!).  It makes sense as the capacity of roadways is increased, that the total vehicular traffic would as well but again, that's different than the concept of congestion.

I don't doubt the trends of increased urbanization and look forward to many aspects of that, in fact.  I didn't say Americans prefer suburban living, just that in terms of detailed urbanicity, more Americans live in suburbs, exurbs, towns, and rural areas than do in the downtowns of cities.  I see that "downtown-esque walkable/bikable space with public transit" is not the norm for so many, even if trending that way.  I think there will always be a % that wants more space/land and is fine with living in a less dense area.  Some are more extreme than others and want the opposite of urbanized with walkable/bikable space whereas some just want enough space to have a yard/garden and not share walls with neighbors.

As for the last part, I'm not even sure how we got there.  The person I was replying to thinks building roads is destroying the environment.  That's simply too drastic for me.  I'm not sure where you live or how bike lanes are constructed in your neck of the woods, but here bike lanes are usually squeezed onto existing roads/shoulders.  I was just pointing out that roads for cars vs. roads for bikes/feet are made with the same materials.  Yes, of course, if building a standalone path only for bikes and people, it would be orders of magnitude less intensive from an earth-moving and materials perspective as well as wear and tear.  Highway asphalt enables my wife to get to work and for us to escape to our family properties and go on vacations and countless weekend trips.  I don't see that changing.  Highway asphalt will be dominated by electric vehicles in the future instead of ICE so I'm optimistic about vehicle emissions in the future.  Thus, currently I'm fine with a portion of my tax dollars going toward improving existing roads and handling capacity/congestion properly.  If I happen to be in the minority on that moving forward, then I imagine I would have to pay more directly for the luxuries of what I do with my leisure time if it involves a vehicle road, which would be fair.  Personally I don't think there should be toll roads on the interstate system at all but now we're getting into the weeds and even further outside the scope of this topic.

[GuitarStv]

Why don't we hold Biden accountable?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/images-from-hunter-bidens-laptop-call-into-question-joe-bidens-denial-of-talking-business-with-son

I'm for holding Biden accountable.

There seems to be a 2015 picture of Biden standing with his son and Carlos Slim, Miguel Magnani, and Jeff Cooper. What does Joe Biden need to be held accountable for though?  Was there a business deal that was made between these people or something?  The article linked doesn't mention anything.

[ncornilsen]

Why don't we hold Biden accountable?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/images-from-hunter-bidens-laptop-call-into-question-joe-bidens-denial-of-talking-business-with-son

I'm for holding Biden accountable.

There seems to be a 2015 picture of Biden standing with his son and Carlos Slim, Miguel Magnani, and Jeff Cooper. What does Joe Biden need to be held accountable for though?  Was there a business deal that was made between these people or something?  The article linked doesn't mention anything.

Yes, there was a "flipping gigantic" deal in the works here, complete with Airforce 2 flying them down to Mexico at one point. This shows that joe was lying about using his power as then VP to help Hunter do business deals (with foriegn entities, no less.)

[GuitarStv]

Why don't we hold Biden accountable?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/images-from-hunter-bidens-laptop-call-into-question-joe-bidens-denial-of-talking-business-with-son

I'm for holding Biden accountable.

There seems to be a 2015 picture of Biden standing with his son and Carlos Slim, Miguel Magnani, and Jeff Cooper. What does Joe Biden need to be held accountable for though?  Was there a business deal that was made between these people or something?  The article linked doesn't mention anything.

Yes, there was a "flipping gigantic" deal in the works here, complete with Airforce 2 flying them down to Mexico at one point. This shows that joe was lying about using his power as then VP to help Hunter do business deals (with foriegn entities, no less.)

The lying is legit reason to be upset.

What 'flipping gigantic' deal happened that Joe Biden can be crucified for though?

[ncornilsen]

Why don't we hold Biden accountable?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/images-from-hunter-bidens-laptop-call-into-question-joe-bidens-denial-of-talking-business-with-son

I'm for holding Biden accountable.

There seems to be a 2015 picture of Biden standing with his son and Carlos Slim, Miguel Magnani, and Jeff Cooper. What does Joe Biden need to be held accountable for though?  Was there a business deal that was made between these people or something?  The article linked doesn't mention anything.

Yes, there was a "flipping gigantic" deal in the works here, complete with Airforce 2 flying them down to Mexico at one point. This shows that joe was lying about using his power as then VP to help Hunter do business deals (with foriegn entities, no less.)

The lying is legit reason to be upset.

What 'flipping gigantic' deal happened that Joe Biden can be crucified for though?

Looks like you can take your pick on anything Hunter was/is involved in.

[GuitarStv]

Why don't we hold Biden accountable?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/images-from-hunter-bidens-laptop-call-into-question-joe-bidens-denial-of-talking-business-with-son

I'm for holding Biden accountable.

There seems to be a 2015 picture of Biden standing with his son and Carlos Slim, Miguel Magnani, and Jeff Cooper. What does Joe Biden need to be held accountable for though?  Was there a business deal that was made between these people or something?  The article linked doesn't mention anything.

Yes, there was a "flipping gigantic" deal in the works here, complete with Airforce 2 flying them down to Mexico at one point. This shows that joe was lying about using his power as then VP to help Hunter do business deals (with foriegn entities, no less.)

The lying is legit reason to be upset.

What 'flipping gigantic' deal happened that Joe Biden can be crucified for though?

Looks like you can take your pick on anything Hunter was/is involved in.

So is there actually a gigantic deal that happened that Joe Biden was involved in, or is there only a picture of him with his son and some people that his son was doing business with?

[sixwings]

Why don't we hold Biden accountable?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/images-from-hunter-bidens-laptop-call-into-question-joe-bidens-denial-of-talking-business-with-son

I'm for holding Biden accountable.

There seems to be a 2015 picture of Biden standing with his son and Carlos Slim, Miguel Magnani, and Jeff Cooper. What does Joe Biden need to be held accountable for though?  Was there a business deal that was made between these people or something?  The article linked doesn't mention anything.

Yes, there was a "flipping gigantic" deal in the works here, complete with Airforce 2 flying them down to Mexico at one point. This shows that joe was lying about using his power as then VP to help Hunter do business deals (with foriegn entities, no less.)

The lying is legit reason to be upset.

What 'flipping gigantic' deal happened that Joe Biden can be crucified for though?

Looks like you can take your pick on anything Hunter was/is involved in.

So is there actually a gigantic deal that happened that Joe Biden was involved in, or is there only a picture of him with his son and some people that his son was doing business with?

That was a fox news link... there's probably no evidence at all beyond that photo that Biden was involved in anything, much less using his influence as VP to make business deals for his son. Like yeah, just tangentially his son would get more interest from people for business interests, but that doesn't mean Biden was involved in any way or actively used his influence. But it's fox, so some photo, that may not even be from 2015, is all that's needed.

[nereo]

Why don't we hold Biden accountable?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/images-from-hunter-bidens-laptop-call-into-question-joe-bidens-denial-of-talking-business-with-son

I'm for holding Biden accountable.

There seems to be a 2015 picture of Biden standing with his son and Carlos Slim, Miguel Magnani, and Jeff Cooper. What does Joe Biden need to be held accountable for though?  Was there a business deal that was made between these people or something?  The article linked doesn't mention anything.

Yes, there was a "flipping gigantic" deal in the works here, complete with Airforce 2 flying them down to Mexico at one point. This shows that joe was lying about using his power as then VP to help Hunter do business deals (with foriegn entities, no less.)

The lying is legit reason to be upset.

What 'flipping gigantic' deal happened that Joe Biden can be crucified for though?

Looks like you can take your pick on anything Hunter was/is involved in.

I don’t get it.  What does this have to do with Biden’s policies?  Or anything else, for that matter…?

[LennStar]

Yes, there was a "flipping gigantic" deal in the works here, complete with Airforce 2 flying them down to Mexico at one point. This shows that joe was lying about using his power as then VP to help Hunter do business deals (with foriegn entities, no less.)

Just as a sidenote (I have no idea what this is about, I definitely won't give !"§$%& FoxNews any "eyeballs") - It is usual all over the world for "business leaders" (and some journalists) to fly in the plane of the head of state. I would be surprised if that was not the case in the US. Anyone knows?

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

My mistake. I wasn't clear what I was meaning. The theory I was referring to that I believe you subscribe to from our conversation is the theory that gun advocates, despite polls, don't really want any change and/or that there are a tiny number of moderate gun advocates. It seemed that you believed that gun advocates in any significant percentages wouldn't be swayed even if small, incremental changes were made, and wouldn't really support them. If I am wrong on any of this, please correct me. That was what I was meaning.

I see, and generally, yes you are correct.  As a theory is nothing more than an attempt to explain the available evidence, I suppose you could call that view a theory.

Polls are great and make people feel good about themselves when they give the answer that gives them whatever validation they want.  Actions are what matter in the real world.  History provides no evidence of gun rights proponents advocating for or actually supporting in any way what they claim via polls they support.

Is there a reason anyone should believe the polls despite there being no evidence to support those polls and in the face of overwhelming historical evidence showing the exact opposite?

I mean, I would say that it's definitely speculation and a theory on my part for sure as well. The reasons I think it might be legit are as follows:

Polls do say it's true. Of course, I can't guarantee any poll is legit, but I tend to trust the results of polls unless given a compelling reason to doubt it. Additionally, this is not a single poll, but poll after poll after poll. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/

As mentioned before, it seems the political landscape is shifting with the declining membership in the NRA. I take this to mean that many gun owners are getting tired of the more extremist positions on things or at least are reticent to support how these people are acting/presenting gun owners. This would seem to indicate to me that they might be open to some changes.

I'm also not sure what the overwhelming historical evidence is of what I'm understanding your claim to be - that pro-gun people would muddy the water if something about background checks were proposed (how I am interpreting your quote from before of: "For example, all these self reported gun advocates that support better background checks can claim to support that, safe in the knowledge that no such better background check laws are ever likely to pass.  If such laws are proposed, the detail of such laws can be rationally and quite legitimately argued against to the point that the law will never pass.")

I'm not sure of the evidence because I don't believe I've seen many/any instances of something being proposed of a very limited scope on this topic. Instead, it almost always seems to come as part of a package of something bigger. For example, since we're on a Biden post, I did a quick review of Biden's stance on gun control straight off of his campaign page - he highlights the assault weapons ban as a win and compares how assault weapons should be treated to how fully automatic weapons are treated (regulated to the point that it's not too far off from a full ban). Anyways, all that to say, from what I've seen of things proposed by gun control politicians in America, it's never simple. It's never limited. There are always other parts and pieces to the legislation being proposed. I would support changes to gun background checks to improve things. I would not support it if it were presented as a part of a renewed Clinton assault weapons ban - not because I don't support the change in background checks specifically.

All that to say, I'm not aware of much evidence that is overwhelming to show that pro-gun people always muddy the waters that would make me confident they would do it again on a background check bill. I may be misunderstanding your point or missing some evidence, but that's just where I see it now. I will say that if you're asking for pro-gun people to go out and write their congress people to demand that background checks be improved - then I do agree with you there. It's probably not going to happen. They are pro-gun - they're probably going to be more concerned with gun rights being removed than with demanding improved background checks. However, I do not think that would translate into significant protests and arguments against a focused piece of gun control legislation just about improving background checks. I think that a lot of pro-gun people - maybe not as much as evidenced in the polls, but a solid majority - would be fine with it and wouldn't, say, turn on their representative they liked for supporting it or protest it or what have you, but again, I acknowledge it's just a theory.

[PKFFW]

I mean, I would say that it's definitely speculation and a theory on my part for sure as well. The reasons I think it might be legit are as follows:

Polls do say it's true. Of course, I can't guarantee any poll is legit, but I tend to trust the results of polls unless given a compelling reason to doubt it. Additionally, this is not a single poll, but poll after poll after poll. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/

I'm sure the polls are actually correct.  All those people claiming to support better background checks almost certainly believe in their hearts that they do actually support that.  The reality is though, to my knowledge, none, or at least an infinitesimal number, are actually out there doing anything that would result in better background checks actually happening.

It's all well and good to "support" some nebulous notion of better background checks.  However, if one is not willing to actually expend energy and do anything to make that a reality, and in most cases, is happy to throw up roadblocks to any discussion on what "better background checks" might even entail in the real world, I'm comfortable believing that person doesn't really support what they claim to support.

As mentioned before, it seems the political landscape is shifting with the declining membership in the NRA. I take this to mean that many gun owners are getting tired of the more extremist positions on things or at least are reticent to support how these people are acting/presenting gun owners. This would seem to indicate to me that they might be open to some changes.

No argument here.  However, not doing something (being a member of the NRA) isn't exactly the same as actually doing something. (eg: actively working to make what one claims to support become a reality)

I'm also not sure what the overwhelming historical evidence is of what I'm understanding your claim to be - that pro-gun people would muddy the water if something about background checks were proposed (how I am interpreting your quote from before of: "For example, all these self reported gun advocates that support better background checks can claim to support that, safe in the knowledge that no such better background check laws are ever likely to pass.  If such laws are proposed, the detail of such laws can be rationally and quite legitimately argued against to the point that the law will never pass.")

I'm not sure of the evidence because I don't believe I've seen many/any instances of something being proposed of a very limited scope on this topic. Instead, it almost always seems to come as part of a package of something bigger. For example, since we're on a Biden post, I did a quick review of Biden's stance on gun control straight off of his campaign page - he highlights the assault weapons ban as a win and compares how assault weapons should be treated to how fully automatic weapons are treated (regulated to the point that it's not too far off from a full ban). Anyways, all that to say, from what I've seen of things proposed by gun control politicians in America, it's never simple. It's never limited. There are always other parts and pieces to the legislation being proposed. I would support changes to gun background checks to improve things. I would not support it if it were presented as a part of a renewed Clinton assault weapons ban - not because I don't support the change in background checks specifically.

All that to say, I'm not aware of much evidence that is overwhelming to show that pro-gun people always muddy the waters that would make me confident they would do it again on a background check bill. I may be misunderstanding your point or missing some evidence, but that's just where I see it now. I will say that if you're asking for pro-gun people to go out and write their congress people to demand that background checks be improved - then I do agree with you there. It's probably not going to happen. They are pro-gun - they're probably going to be more concerned with gun rights being removed than with demanding improved background checks. However, I do not think that would translate into significant protests and arguments against a focused piece of gun control legislation just about improving background checks. I think that a lot of pro-gun people - maybe not as much as evidenced in the polls, but a solid majority - would be fine with it and wouldn't, say, turn on their representative they liked for supporting it or protest it or what have you, but again, I acknowledge it's just a theory.

I admit, I worded myself very poorly.  Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, as they say.  Therefore, rather than "overwhelming historical evidence showing the exact opposite", I should have stated the absolute lack of evidence that would support the claim by poll respondents that they actually support what they claim to support.  eg:  the lack of any historical evidence showing a meaningful number of gun advocates doing any activity at all that would likely result in better background checks being implemented, besides ticking a box on a poll.

As for muddying the waters regarding a specific proposal for only better background checks, you are right, as far as I'm aware, there has not been a piece of legislation put forward for solely and specifically that purpose.  However, the idea of better background checks has been put forward as a proposal to be debated many times and has always been met with resistance due to the many questions and concerns such as the ones I listed.  The end result of such discussions seemingly indicating that any attempt to implement better background checks would be unacceptable.  So I see no reason to believe all those questions and concerns that are raised when the idea is simply mentioned as a talking point to suddenly disappear and not be brought up if legislation was proposed.

[By the River]

Today's victim of his policies is the first amendment. 

First, an aside.  I understand facebook and twitter are private entities and entitled to determine who are their customers and thus can take Trump's account off.  (just like the bakery should be able to decide whose cake to cook or not).  The Bill of Rights including the free speech portion of the first amendment restricts government restriction of free speech not companies.

Press spokesman Psaki said "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation"   We're in this statement is the government.  The government is in effect pulling facebook posts.  That is specifically what the first amendment was passed to prevent.  Also:

Earlier, Politico reported that Biden allied groups like the DNC are planning to work with SMS carriers to read and stop text messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

Of course, right now this is supposedly only about covid and vaccinations but what will be next?  inflation?  Will my posts about paying $3+ gallon for gas be stopped.  Will any texts about the family size box of wheat thins changing from 16 to 14 ounces but staying the same price be automatically stopped?

I switched to supporting Libertarians after GWB and congress passed the patriot act because it expanded domestic surveillance.  In 2001, some liberals opposed this act.  However, the patriot act is a pittance compared to the above expansion of domestic surveillance.  Will liberals again oppose this?

[GuitarStv]

Today's victim of his policies is the first amendment. 

First, an aside.  I understand facebook and twitter are private entities and entitled to determine who are their customers and thus can take Trump's account off.  (just like the bakery should be able to decide whose cake to cook or not).  The Bill of Rights including the free speech portion of the first amendment restricts government restriction of free speech not companies.

Press spokesman Psaki said "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation"   We're in this statement is the government.  The government is in effect pulling facebook posts.  That is specifically what the first amendment was passed to prevent.  Also:

Earlier, Politico reported that Biden allied groups like the DNC are planning to work with SMS carriers to read and stop text messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

Of course, right now this is supposedly only about covid and vaccinations but what will be next?  inflation?  Will my posts about paying $3+ gallon for gas be stopped.  Will any texts about the family size box of wheat thins changing from 16 to 14 ounces but staying the same price be automatically stopped?

I switched to supporting Libertarians after GWB and congress passed the patriot act because it expanded domestic surveillance.  In 2001, some liberals opposed this act.  However, the patriot act is a pittance compared to the above expansion of domestic surveillance.  Will liberals again oppose this?

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your post here.

Like you said, facebook and twitter are privately owned and therefore can censor anyone they wish to.  The government's actions don't appear to violate the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That action doesn't abridge freedom of speech, or of the press, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  The government isn't making a law that does censoring and isn't doing censoring.  They're pointing to things that might be of use to the tech censors and letting the private company make their own choices.

Now, the question of how to police giant companies that control how most people get news these days . . . that's a different matter.  I am troubled by the power that private companies are given with this power, but that is how the constitution is worded and doubt we'll see it changed over this.

As far as domestic surveillance, I'm not sure I see the comparison between the Patriot Act and this action.  This action is scanning through publicly shared messages.  The Patriot Act massively expanded the ability of the government to surveil private conversations.  These are very different, at least in my mind.

[former player]

Today's victim of his policies is the first amendment. 

First, an aside.  I understand facebook and twitter are private entities and entitled to determine who are their customers and thus can take Trump's account off.  (just like the bakery should be able to decide whose cake to cook or not).  The Bill of Rights including the free speech portion of the first amendment restricts government restriction of free speech not companies.

Press spokesman Psaki said "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation"   We're in this statement is the government.  The government is in effect pulling facebook posts.  That is specifically what the first amendment was passed to prevent.  Also:

Earlier, Politico reported that Biden allied groups like the DNC are planning to work with SMS carriers to read and stop text messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

Of course, right now this is supposedly only about covid and vaccinations but what will be next?  inflation?  Will my posts about paying $3+ gallon for gas be stopped.  Will any texts about the family size box of wheat thins changing from 16 to 14 ounces but staying the same price be automatically stopped?

I switched to supporting Libertarians after GWB and congress passed the patriot act because it expanded domestic surveillance.  In 2001, some liberals opposed this act.  However, the patriot act is a pittance compared to the above expansion of domestic surveillance.  Will liberals again oppose this?

I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as that.  As well as the point made by GuitarStv, it's also possible to question the status of social media as "private entities".  In contrast to other private entities, such as individual citizens and traditional publishers, the Federal State has chosen to privilege the social media companies with specific statutory protections, and it can be argued that to the extent that those companies rely on those statutory protections from the government they are no longer "private entities" but public entities operating under the protection of government law - in which case it is reasonable for government to place conditions on how those entities exercise the powers which government has given them, for instance by requiring that they do not spread deliberately false information to the detriment of the health and lives of the citizens whose rights, including the right to life, the Constitution is designed to protect.

[nereo]

Today's victim of his policies is the first amendment. 

First, an aside.  I understand facebook and twitter are private entities and entitled to determine who are their customers and thus can take Trump's account off.  (just like the bakery should be able to decide whose cake to cook or not).  The Bill of Rights including the free speech portion of the first amendment restricts government restriction of free speech not companies.

Press spokesman Psaki said "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation"   We're in this statement is the government.  The government is in effect pulling facebook posts.  That is specifically what the first amendment was passed to prevent.  Also:

Earlier, Politico reported that Biden allied groups like the DNC are planning to work with SMS carriers to read and stop text messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

Of course, right now this is supposedly only about covid and vaccinations but what will be next?  inflation?  Will my posts about paying $3+ gallon for gas be stopped.  Will any texts about the family size box of wheat thins changing from 16 to 14 ounces but staying the same price be automatically stopped?

I switched to supporting Libertarians after GWB and congress passed the patriot act because it expanded domestic surveillance.  In 2001, some liberals opposed this act.  However, the patriot act is a pittance compared to the above expansion of domestic surveillance.  Will liberals again oppose this?

You are basically arguing the "slippery slope" - while acknowledging that this isn't under the purview of the 1st amendment, despite starting your post by saying the first amendment is the 'victim'. 

[Boll weevil]

Today's victim of his policies is the first amendment. 

First, an aside.  I understand facebook and twitter are private entities and entitled to determine who are their customers and thus can take Trump's account off.  (just like the bakery should be able to decide whose cake to cook or not).  The Bill of Rights including the free speech portion of the first amendment restricts government restriction of free speech not companies.

Press spokesman Psaki said "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation"   We're in this statement is the government.  The government is in effect pulling facebook posts.  That is specifically what the first amendment was passed to prevent.  Also:

Earlier, Politico reported that Biden allied groups like the DNC are planning to work with SMS carriers to read and stop text messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

Of course, right now this is supposedly only about covid and vaccinations but what will be next?  inflation?  Will my posts about paying $3+ gallon for gas be stopped.  Will any texts about the family size box of wheat thins changing from 16 to 14 ounces but staying the same price be automatically stopped?

I switched to supporting Libertarians after GWB and congress passed the patriot act because it expanded domestic surveillance.  In 2001, some liberals opposed this act.  However, the patriot act is a pittance compared to the above expansion of domestic surveillance.  Will liberals again oppose this?

I don’t know the methods the administration is supposedly using to “flag” the posts. But as a parallel, note that the FDA has the ability to stop companies from advertising health benefits that have not been proven (prevents something, cures something, etc). The only people I hear complaining about that are the sellers who have to retract their health claims.

[Kris]

Today's victim of his policies is the first amendment. 

First, an aside.  I understand facebook and twitter are private entities and entitled to determine who are their customers and thus can take Trump's account off.  (just like the bakery should be able to decide whose cake to cook or not).  The Bill of Rights including the free speech portion of the first amendment restricts government restriction of free speech not companies.

Press spokesman Psaki said "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation"   We're in this statement is the government.  The government is in effect pulling facebook posts.  That is specifically what the first amendment was passed to prevent.  Also:

Earlier, Politico reported that Biden allied groups like the DNC are planning to work with SMS carriers to read and stop text messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

Of course, right now this is supposedly only about covid and vaccinations but what will be next?  inflation?  Will my posts about paying $3+ gallon for gas be stopped.  Will any texts about the family size box of wheat thins changing from 16 to 14 ounces but staying the same price be automatically stopped?

I switched to supporting Libertarians after GWB and congress passed the patriot act because it expanded domestic surveillance.  In 2001, some liberals opposed this act.  However, the patriot act is a pittance compared to the above expansion of domestic surveillance.  Will liberals again oppose this?

I don’t know the methods the administration is supposedly using to “flag” the posts. But as a parallel, note that the FDA has the ability to stop companies from advertising health benefits that have not been proven (prevents something, cures something, etc). The only people I hear complaining about that are the sellers who have to retract their health claims.

This.

[Tyler durden]

Today's victim of his policies is the first amendment. 

First, an aside.  I understand facebook and twitter are private entities and entitled to determine who are their customers and thus can take Trump's account off.  (just like the bakery should be able to decide whose cake to cook or not).  The Bill of Rights including the free speech portion of the first amendment restricts government restriction of free speech not companies.

Press spokesman Psaki said "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation"   We're in this statement is the government.  The government is in effect pulling facebook posts.  That is specifically what the first amendment was passed to prevent.  Also:

Earlier, Politico reported that Biden allied groups like the DNC are planning to work with SMS carriers to read and stop text messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

Of course, right now this is supposedly only about covid and vaccinations but what will be next?  inflation?  Will my posts about paying $3+ gallon for gas be stopped.  Will any texts about the family size box of wheat thins changing from 16 to 14 ounces but staying the same price be automatically stopped?

I switched to supporting Libertarians after GWB and congress passed the patriot act because it expanded domestic surveillance.  In 2001, some liberals opposed this act.  However, the patriot act is a pittance compared to the above expansion of domestic surveillance.  Will liberals again oppose this?

Not a great look for 1st amendment rights

Let’s distill it down for what it really is. The government is pressuring Facebook etc, which are more or less now the new “public square” to police what speech is permitted. I wonder if they are still blocking and banning talks about the lab leak theory ? It is completely reasonable to speculate what’s next. Unless someone operates on the assumptions that once government gets its hands on power it willing gives it back. Ha!

We are seeing a nice new merger of state and corporate power. That fits the definition of something …

[Kris]

Today's victim of his policies is the first amendment. 

First, an aside.  I understand facebook and twitter are private entities and entitled to determine who are their customers and thus can take Trump's account off.  (just like the bakery should be able to decide whose cake to cook or not).  The Bill of Rights including the free speech portion of the first amendment restricts government restriction of free speech not companies.

Press spokesman Psaki said "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation"   We're in this statement is the government.  The government is in effect pulling facebook posts.  That is specifically what the first amendment was passed to prevent.  Also:

Earlier, Politico reported that Biden allied groups like the DNC are planning to work with SMS carriers to read and stop text messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

Of course, right now this is supposedly only about covid and vaccinations but what will be next?  inflation?  Will my posts about paying $3+ gallon for gas be stopped.  Will any texts about the family size box of wheat thins changing from 16 to 14 ounces but staying the same price be automatically stopped?

I switched to supporting Libertarians after GWB and congress passed the patriot act because it expanded domestic surveillance.  In 2001, some liberals opposed this act.  However, the patriot act is a pittance compared to the above expansion of domestic surveillance.  Will liberals again oppose this?

Not a great look for 1st amendment rights

Let’s distill it down for what it really is. The government is pressuring Facebook etc, which are more or less now the new “public square” to police what speech is permitted. I wonder if they are still blocking and banning talks about the lab leak theory ? It is completely reasonable to speculate what’s next. Unless someone operates on the assumptions that once government gets its hands on power it willing gives it back. Ha!

We are seeing a nice new merger of state and corporate power. That fits the definition of something …

"New"? LMAO!!!!

[GuitarStv]

Not a great look for 1st amendment rights

Let’s distill it down for what it really is. The government is pressuring Facebook etc, which are more or less now the new “public square” to police what speech is permitted. I wonder if they are still blocking and banning talks about the lab leak theory ? It is completely reasonable to speculate what’s next. Unless someone operates on the assumptions that once government gets its hands on power it willing gives it back. Ha!

We are seeing a nice new merger of state and corporate power. That fits the definition of something …

What evidence is there that the government is pressuring facebook, or that they have any power in particular?

As far as facebook blocking/banning discussion about the lab leak theory, my understanding is that this was done entirely priavtely.  Your comments here lead me to believe that you feel the government should reduce the freedom of private companies like facebook to operate as they feel appropriate, is that a correct read?

[Tyler durden]

Not a great look for 1st amendment rights

Let’s distill it down for what it really is. The government is pressuring Facebook etc, which are more or less now the new “public square” to police what speech is permitted. I wonder if they are still blocking and banning talks about the lab leak theory ? It is completely reasonable to speculate what’s next. Unless someone operates on the assumptions that once government gets its hands on power it willing gives it back. Ha!

We are seeing a nice new merger of state and corporate power. That fits the definition of something …

What evidence is there that the government is pressuring facebook, or that they have any power in particular?

As far as facebook blocking/banning discussion about the lab leak theory, my understanding is that this was done entirely priavtely.  Your comments here lead me to believe that you feel the government should reduce the freedom of private companies like facebook to operate as they feel appropriate, is that a correct read?

Anonymous CNN sources say that the White House is pressuring Facebook. Surely we can trust CNN. that’s a nice business you have there be a shame if someone regulated it. ;)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/16/tech/misinformation-covid-facebook-twitter-white-house/index.html

That is not a correct read. I’m displaying how suppressing information can be a really bad idea. Facebook suppressed information on the lab leak theory which I think was a mistake. Sure they are free to voluntarily suppress whatever as they are a private company but it’s not good policy in my opinion.

[GuitarStv]

Not a great look for 1st amendment rights

Let’s distill it down for what it really is. The government is pressuring Facebook etc, which are more or less now the new “public square” to police what speech is permitted. I wonder if they are still blocking and banning talks about the lab leak theory ? It is completely reasonable to speculate what’s next. Unless someone operates on the assumptions that once government gets its hands on power it willing gives it back. Ha!

We are seeing a nice new merger of state and corporate power. That fits the definition of something …

What evidence is there that the government is pressuring facebook, or that they have any power in particular?

As far as facebook blocking/banning discussion about the lab leak theory, my understanding is that this was done entirely priavtely.  Your comments here lead me to believe that you feel the government should reduce the freedom of private companies like facebook to operate as they feel appropriate, is that a correct read?

Anonymous CNN sources say that the White House is pressuring Facebook. Surely we can trust CNN. that’s a nice business you have there be a shame if someone regulated it. ;)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/16/tech/misinformation-covid-facebook-twitter-white-house/index.html

Hmm, I agree.  That does sound like a fair amount of pressure and seems to be pretty sketchy behaviour.  From a second amendment perspective facebook should feel free to suppress or allow any information they feel like - free of government intervention.

[American GenX]

Not a great look for 1st amendment rights

Let’s distill it down for what it really is. The government is pressuring Facebook etc, which are more or less now the new “public square” to police what speech is permitted. I wonder if they are still blocking and banning talks about the lab leak theory ? It is completely reasonable to speculate what’s next. Unless someone operates on the assumptions that once government gets its hands on power it willing gives it back. Ha!

We are seeing a nice new merger of state and corporate power. That fits the definition of something …

What evidence is there that the government is pressuring facebook, or that they have any power in particular?

As far as facebook blocking/banning discussion about the lab leak theory, my understanding is that this was done entirely priavtely.  Your comments here lead me to believe that you feel the government should reduce the freedom of private companies like facebook to operate as they feel appropriate, is that a correct read?

Anonymous CNN sources say that the White House is pressuring Facebook. Surely we can trust CNN. that’s a nice business you have there be a shame if someone regulated it. ;)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/16/tech/misinformation-covid-facebook-twitter-white-house/index.html

Hmm, I agree.  That does sound like a fair amount of pressure and seems to be pretty sketchy behaviour.  From a second amendment perspective facebook should feel free to suppress or allow any information they feel like - free of government intervention.

First amendment, not second.

[former player]

Not a great look for 1st amendment rights

Let’s distill it down for what it really is. The government is pressuring Facebook etc, which are more or less now the new “public square” to police what speech is permitted. I wonder if they are still blocking and banning talks about the lab leak theory ? It is completely reasonable to speculate what’s next. Unless someone operates on the assumptions that once government gets its hands on power it willing gives it back. Ha!

We are seeing a nice new merger of state and corporate power. That fits the definition of something …

What evidence is there that the government is pressuring facebook, or that they have any power in particular?

As far as facebook blocking/banning discussion about the lab leak theory, my understanding is that this was done entirely priavtely.  Your comments here lead me to believe that you feel the government should reduce the freedom of private companies like facebook to operate as they feel appropriate, is that a correct read?

Anonymous CNN sources say that the White House is pressuring Facebook. Surely we can trust CNN. that’s a nice business you have there be a shame if someone regulated it. ;)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/16/tech/misinformation-covid-facebook-twitter-white-house/index.html

Hmm, I agree.  That does sound like a fair amount of pressure and seems to be pretty sketchy behaviour.  From a second amendment perspective facebook should feel free to suppress or allow any information they feel like - free of government intervention.

First amendment, not second.

"Free of government intervention" should also mean "free of government protection" - it should be either or both, not having it both ways.

[nereo]

I think congress deserves most of the blame here. Congress had the power to enact laws, not private companies.  Facebook all but begged the legislature to set clearer guidelines and to modify section 230. Congress did nothing. Now FB and others are in an untenable position where they must regulate hate speech and other vile things not protected under free speech. It’sa ‘dammed if they do, dammed when they don’t” scenario.

[GuitarStv]

Not a great look for 1st amendment rights

Let’s distill it down for what it really is. The government is pressuring Facebook etc, which are more or less now the new “public square” to police what speech is permitted. I wonder if they are still blocking and banning talks about the lab leak theory ? It is completely reasonable to speculate what’s next. Unless someone operates on the assumptions that once government gets its hands on power it willing gives it back. Ha!

We are seeing a nice new merger of state and corporate power. That fits the definition of something …

What evidence is there that the government is pressuring facebook, or that they have any power in particular?

As far as facebook blocking/banning discussion about the lab leak theory, my understanding is that this was done entirely priavtely.  Your comments here lead me to believe that you feel the government should reduce the freedom of private companies like facebook to operate as they feel appropriate, is that a correct read?

Anonymous CNN sources say that the White House is pressuring Facebook. Surely we can trust CNN. that’s a nice business you have there be a shame if someone regulated it. ;)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/16/tech/misinformation-covid-facebook-twitter-white-house/index.html

Hmm, I agree.  That does sound like a fair amount of pressure and seems to be pretty sketchy behaviour.  From a second amendment perspective facebook should feel free to suppress or allow any information they feel like - free of government intervention.

First amendment, not second.

Yes, thank you!  That's the one I meant.

[windytrail]

I think congress deserves most of the blame here. Congress had the power to enact laws, not private companies.  Facebook all but begged the legislature to set clearer guidelines and to modify section 230. Congress did nothing. Now FB and others are in an untenable position where they must regulate hate speech and other vile things not protected under free speech. It’sa ‘dammed if they do, dammed when they don’t” scenario.

Just to be clear, hate speech is protected under the First Amendment (recognizing your comment was ambiguous). At any rate, Facebook is not the government.

[PDXTabs]

I think congress deserves most of the blame here. Congress had the power to enact laws, not private companies.  Facebook all but begged the legislature to set clearer guidelines and to modify section 230. Congress did nothing. Now FB and others are in an untenable position where they must regulate hate speech and other vile things not protected under free speech. It’sa ‘dammed if they do, dammed when they don’t” scenario.

Just to be clear, hate speech is protected under the First Amendment (recognizing your comment was ambiguous). At any rate, Facebook is not the government.

I'm not a lawyer, but that is my understanding. However, if used in conjunction with another crime it can lead to worse charges. Eg:

A person’s speech can be used against them in establishing the occurrence of a hate crime. In some cases, it can be argued that a person’s offensive speech is literal evidence of a certain type of crime. For example, if a person is repeatedly called a racial slur, no crime has been committed. However, if the person is then assaulted by the person making those slurs, it can be argued that disdain for the person’s racial identity served as a motive for the crime against them as evidenced by the language used preceding or during the assault. If the assailant was found to be guilty and it is proven that their actions were motivated by bigotry, the offender could be charged with a hate crime.

The Legalities Of Hate Speech

Furthermore, and again I'm not a lawyer, but immediate and actionable threats of violence are illegal. Which means that:

... a threat may result in criminal charges. Depending on the jurisdiction where the threat takes place, charges can range from a terrorist threat to harassment to criminal assault.

For example, a person who makes bigoted statements while threatening bodily harm to a person of the Muslim faith can be charged with a crime. Charges would not be brought about simply due to any insulting language used, but charges may be applied because it is illegal to make threats against a person. For the same reasons, this would also include inciting violence against a group being discriminated against.

[windytrail]

I am a lawyer. For a visceral display of the legality of hate speech, see the Westboro Baptist Church case (Snyder v. Phelps). (https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-snyder-v-phelps)

  Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist Church believe that God punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly within the military. To demonstrate their beliefs, Phelps and his followers often picket at military funerals.

Albert Snyder's son, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in the line of duty in Iraq in 2006. Westboro picketed Matthew Snyder's funeral displaying signs that stated, for instance, "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "Don't Pray for the USA." The church notified local authorities in advance that they intended to picket the funeral, staged the picket on public land adjacent to a public street, and complied with all police instructions. Church members also sang hymns and recited Bible verses.

Although Albert Snyder could see the tops of the picket signs on the day of the funeral, he could not read what was written on them and it was not until he saw a news story about the funeral and the picketing that he became aware of the church's message. Snyder sued Phelps and the church claiming, among other things, that their actions caused him severe emotional distress. In defense, Phelps argued that his speech (the picketing and the signs) was protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

[By the River]

Today's victim of his policies is the first amendment. 

First, an aside.  I understand facebook and twitter are private entities and entitled to determine who are their customers and thus can take Trump's account off.  (just like the bakery should be able to decide whose cake to cook or not).  The Bill of Rights including the free speech portion of the first amendment restricts government restriction of free speech not companies.

Press spokesman Psaki said "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation"   We're in this statement is the government.  The government is in effect pulling facebook posts.  That is specifically what the first amendment was passed to prevent.  Also:

Earlier, Politico reported that Biden allied groups like the DNC are planning to work with SMS carriers to read and stop text messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

Of course, right now this is supposedly only about covid and vaccinations but what will be next?  inflation?  Will my posts about paying $3+ gallon for gas be stopped.  Will any texts about the family size box of wheat thins changing from 16 to 14 ounces but staying the same price be automatically stopped?

I switched to supporting Libertarians after GWB and congress passed the patriot act because it expanded domestic surveillance.  In 2001, some liberals opposed this act.  However, the patriot act is a pittance compared to the above expansion of domestic surveillance.  Will liberals again oppose this?

Tuesday, the ACLU tweeted in opposition to Biden's policy here.  One of their quotes: "No matter which party is in power, the government cannot be trusted to label 'truth' or 'fiction' any more than Facebook or Twitter can."  I'm glad the ACLU is on the correct side of this. 

[nereo]

Today's victim of his policies is the first amendment. 

First, an aside.  I understand facebook and twitter are private entities and entitled to determine who are their customers and thus can take Trump's account off.  (just like the bakery should be able to decide whose cake to cook or not).  The Bill of Rights including the free speech portion of the first amendment restricts government restriction of free speech not companies.

Press spokesman Psaki said "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation"   We're in this statement is the government.  The government is in effect pulling facebook posts.  That is specifically what the first amendment was passed to prevent.  Also:

Earlier, Politico reported that Biden allied groups like the DNC are planning to work with SMS carriers to read and stop text messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

Of course, right now this is supposedly only about covid and vaccinations but what will be next?  inflation?  Will my posts about paying $3+ gallon for gas be stopped.  Will any texts about the family size box of wheat thins changing from 16 to 14 ounces but staying the same price be automatically stopped?

I switched to supporting Libertarians after GWB and congress passed the patriot act because it expanded domestic surveillance.  In 2001, some liberals opposed this act.  However, the patriot act is a pittance compared to the above expansion of domestic surveillance.  Will liberals again oppose this?

Tuesday, the ACLU tweeted in opposition to Biden's policy here.  One of their quotes: "No matter which party is in power, the government cannot be trusted to label 'truth' or 'fiction' any more than Facebook or Twitter can."  I'm glad the ACLU is on the correct side of this.

You are quoting yourself in support of your own opinion...?

[RetiredAt63]

Here's another topic for you.

Historically Canada/US trade relations have been better under Republican Presidents (not what one might expect).  Democratic government policies tend to be a bit closer to general Canadian values, so we are fine with Democratic Presidents as neighbours, but Republicans (except Grump, the bastard who call us a security risk as an excuse when he imposed tariffs) have been at least as good for our finances.

So this policy is making people wonder about Biden's actual relationship with Canada, as opposed to all the happy rhetoric.

https://www.sootoday.com/national-news/despite-canadas-easing-us-adds-30-days-to-travel-restrictions-at-shared-border-3973268

Seriously, we have a better vaccination record (and the difference is widening), we have fewer cases.  It looks like concern over the US/Mexican border means they are lumping both borders together.  Twits.

[JGS1980]

Here's another topic for you.

Historically Canada/US trade relations have been better under Republican Presidents (not what one might expect).  Democratic government policies tend to be a bit closer to general Canadian values, so we are fine with Democratic Presidents as neighbours, but Republicans (except Grump, the bastard who call us a security risk as an excuse when he imposed tariffs) have been at least as good for our finances.

So this policy is making people wonder about Biden's actual relationship with Canada, as opposed to all the happy rhetoric.

https://www.sootoday.com/national-news/despite-canadas-easing-us-adds-30-days-to-travel-restrictions-at-shared-border-3973268

Seriously, we have a better vaccination record (and the difference is widening), we have fewer cases.  It looks like concern over the US/Mexican border means they are lumping both borders together.  Twits.

Maybe they are protecting Canadians from Americans? Of course they can't just say that, so they have to obfuscate.

Meanwhile your economic US:Canada input is very interesting considering that over the last 40+ years, Democratic presidents have done much better for the US Economy than Republican presidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html

[Tyler durden]

Here's another topic for you.

Historically Canada/US trade relations have been better under Republican Presidents (not what one might expect).  Democratic government policies tend to be a bit closer to general Canadian values, so we are fine with Democratic Presidents as neighbours, but Republicans (except Grump, the bastard who call us a security risk as an excuse when he imposed tariffs) have been at least as good for our finances.

So this policy is making people wonder about Biden's actual relationship with Canada, as opposed to all the happy rhetoric.

https://www.sootoday.com/national-news/despite-canadas-easing-us-adds-30-days-to-travel-restrictions-at-shared-border-3973268

Seriously, we have a better vaccination record (and the difference is widening), we have fewer cases.  It looks like concern over the US/Mexican border means they are lumping both borders together.  Twits.

Maybe they are protecting Canadians from Americans? Of course they can't just say that, so they have to obfuscate.

Meanwhile your economic US:Canada input is very interesting considering that over the last 40+ years, Democratic presidents have done much better for the US Economy than Republican presidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html

Those stats on Democratic vs Republican presidents and who is better for the economy always seemed unfair or perhaps ignoring timing in my view. Much of what goes on is circumstance.

So for instance

-GW Bush - took over an economy at the ends of its cycle timed with 9/11 and the tech bubble. When he left the housing market imploded ( volker rule being removed during Clinton ) and the economy was on its knees
-Obama comes in with an economy in severe recession almost depression, it had no where to go but up. Maybe some of his policies helped a bit but it would have rebounded anyway.
-Trump comes in near the end of the next economic cycle and manages to keep it going for 3 1/2 more years then Covid.
-Biden comes in as the vaccine is hitting 1 million injections per day into Americans arms. The economy is at a severe low and rebounding for him.

Both Obama and now Biden are stepping into economies that are rebounding. Our economy now would have rebounded with a potato in the white house.

I'm not saying policies don't hurt or help but circumstance and timing can account for what seems like 90% of it.

or looked at another way - maybe lowering taxes and decreasing regulations take time to permeate into the economy and it can be years before the results are seen. Increased spending has more of an immediate effect, to the upside.

[PDXTabs]

Those stats on Democratic vs Republican presidents and who is better for the economy always seemed unfair or perhaps ignoring timing in my view. Much of what goes on is circumstance.

Indeed. I would add that a truly long term infrastructure package might not fully pay off for over 10 years, and the longest that any president will be in office is 8. This was actually one of the tensions during the great recession. A sugar high might get people back to work faster and maybe get Obama reelected, but what we really needed was long term infrastructure spending.

[Tyler durden]

Those stats on Democratic vs Republican presidents and who is better for the economy always seemed unfair or perhaps ignoring timing in my view. Much of what goes on is circumstance.

Indeed. I would add that a truly long term infrastructure package might not fully pay off for over 10 years, and the longest that any president will be in office is 8. This was actually one of the tensions during the great recession. A sugar high might get people back to work faster and maybe get Obama reelected, but what we really needed was long term infrastructure spending.

Agreed. I'd one up you and say good infrastructure could be multi decade. Having the best roads/bridges airports to move things and people around. Along with "human infrastructure" having a highly educated work force. Those things have long term, multi generational payoffs.

[RetiredAt63]

Here's another topic for you.

Historically Canada/US trade relations have been better under Republican Presidents (not what one might expect).  Democratic government policies tend to be a bit closer to general Canadian values, so we are fine with Democratic Presidents as neighbours, but Republicans (except Grump, the bastard who call us a security risk as an excuse when he imposed tariffs) have been at least as good for our finances.

So this policy is making people wonder about Biden's actual relationship with Canada, as opposed to all the happy rhetoric.

https://www.sootoday.com/national-news/despite-canadas-easing-us-adds-30-days-to-travel-restrictions-at-shared-border-3973268

Seriously, we have a better vaccination record (and the difference is widening), we have fewer cases.  It looks like concern over the US/Mexican border means they are lumping both borders together.  Twits.

Maybe they are protecting Canadians from Americans? Of course they can't just say that, so they have to obfuscate.

Meanwhile your economic US:Canada input is very interesting considering that over the last 40+ years, Democratic presidents have done much better for the US Economy than Republican presidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html

Well we are letting the Americans in, so I sure hope none have fake vaccination certificates.  I hope any sensible Canadian checks to see how the situation is at their destination before they go.  The big losers are the border cities on both sides.

Re Presidents and economics, not being an economist I am not sure if "Republicans are better for the Canadian economy" is accurate.  I do know we are trying to expand our trade networks.  Grump showed we are vulnerable to a President who bears us ill will. 

One political difference is that our Prime Ministers have a lot of variety for length of term in office.  So they do have the option to think longer term if they are confident they will have a long run.  And of course they can be in for a very short time as well.  Term lengths range from Charles Tupper at 68 days  to Mackenzie King at twenty-one years and one hundred fifty-four days (three non-consecutive terms).

[By the River]

You are quoting yourself in support of your own opinion...?

I bolded the portion where I originally wondered if we are so politicized that no liberals would come out against this heavy-handed government disruption of speech.  I added the portion where the ACLU has tweeted against it.  I'm glad to see the ACLU has some scruples. 

As an amusing anecdote for censoring speech, the NY Post has an article that Facebook is censoring the word "hoe" in a gardening group for violating community standards.  Someone's account was suspended for writing "Japanese beetles are jerks" in the same group for incitement of hate. 

[WhiteTrashCash]

Here's another topic for you.

Historically Canada/US trade relations have been better under Republican Presidents (not what one might expect).  Democratic government policies tend to be a bit closer to general Canadian values, so we are fine with Democratic Presidents as neighbours, but Republicans (except Grump, the bastard who call us a security risk as an excuse when he imposed tariffs) have been at least as good for our finances.

So this policy is making people wonder about Biden's actual relationship with Canada, as opposed to all the happy rhetoric.

https://www.sootoday.com/national-news/despite-canadas-easing-us-adds-30-days-to-travel-restrictions-at-shared-border-3973268

Seriously, we have a better vaccination record (and the difference is widening), we have fewer cases.  It looks like concern over the US/Mexican border means they are lumping both borders together.  Twits.

Maybe they are protecting Canadians from Americans? Of course they can't just say that, so they have to obfuscate.

Meanwhile your economic US:Canada input is very interesting considering that over the last 40+ years, Democratic presidents have done much better for the US Economy than Republican presidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html

Those stats on Democratic vs Republican presidents and who is better for the economy always seemed unfair or perhaps ignoring timing in my view. Much of what goes on is circumstance.

So for instance

-GW Bush - took over an economy at the ends of its cycle timed with 9/11 and the tech bubble. When he left the housing market imploded ( volker rule being removed during Clinton ) and the economy was on its knees
-Obama comes in with an economy in severe recession almost depression, it had no where to go but up. Maybe some of his policies helped a bit but it would have rebounded anyway.
-Trump comes in near the end of the next economic cycle and manages to keep it going for 3 1/2 more years then Covid.
-Biden comes in as the vaccine is hitting 1 million injections per day into Americans arms. The economy is at a severe low and rebounding for him.

Both Obama and now Biden are stepping into economies that are rebounding. Our economy now would have rebounded with a potato in the white house.

I'm not saying policies don't hurt or help but circumstance and timing can account for what seems like 90% of it.

or looked at another way - maybe lowering taxes and decreasing regulations take time to permeate into the economy and it can be years before the results are seen. Increased spending has more of an immediate effect, to the upside.

That's a lot of coincidences. Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

[ncornilsen]

Here's another topic for you.

Historically Canada/US trade relations have been better under Republican Presidents (not what one might expect).  Democratic government policies tend to be a bit closer to general Canadian values, so we are fine with Democratic Presidents as neighbours, but Republicans (except Grump, the bastard who call us a security risk as an excuse when he imposed tariffs) have been at least as good for our finances.

So this policy is making people wonder about Biden's actual relationship with Canada, as opposed to all the happy rhetoric.

https://www.sootoday.com/national-news/despite-canadas-easing-us-adds-30-days-to-travel-restrictions-at-shared-border-3973268

Seriously, we have a better vaccination record (and the difference is widening), we have fewer cases.  It looks like concern over the US/Mexican border means they are lumping both borders together.  Twits.

Maybe they are protecting Canadians from Americans? Of course they can't just say that, so they have to obfuscate.

Meanwhile your economic US:Canada input is very interesting considering that over the last 40+ years, Democratic presidents have done much better for the US Economy than Republican presidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html

Those stats on Democratic vs Republican presidents and who is better for the economy always seemed unfair or perhaps ignoring timing in my view. Much of what goes on is circumstance.

So for instance

-GW Bush - took over an economy at the ends of its cycle timed with 9/11 and the tech bubble. When he left the housing market imploded ( volker rule being removed during Clinton ) and the economy was on its knees
-Obama comes in with an economy in severe recession almost depression, it had no where to go but up. Maybe some of his policies helped a bit but it would have rebounded anyway.
-Trump comes in near the end of the next economic cycle and manages to keep it going for 3 1/2 more years then Covid.
-Biden comes in as the vaccine is hitting 1 million injections per day into Americans arms. The economy is at a severe low and rebounding for him.

Both Obama and now Biden are stepping into economies that are rebounding. Our economy now would have rebounded with a potato in the white house.

I'm not saying policies don't hurt or help but circumstance and timing can account for what seems like 90% of it.

or looked at another way - maybe lowering taxes and decreasing regulations take time to permeate into the economy and it can be years before the results are seen. Increased spending has more of an immediate effect, to the upside.

That's a lot of coincidences. Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Yes. I suggest you read up on it a bit before throwing it out in this case.

I've always figured that the economy depends on a whole lot more than who's president, and that at a given time, the current president is a result of how things were going toward the end of the term of the previous president; and the economy of today, insofar as politicians affect the economy,is the result of who had control of the government as a whole (Ie, the overall balance of the house/senate, presidency) in the 2-4 years previous.

[brandon1827]

I've always found that premise interesting...but have never actually taken the time to see if the data backs it up. I always chalked it up to politics. The party removed from power will always claim that the current party's success is actually a result of all the previous administration's work when things are going well...and when things aren't going well, they just point to how poor a job the current admin is doing without regard for it being a result of the previous administration's policy. Sort of a "it's going well, then we did that...it's going poorly, then you did that" dynamic at play. I'm not claiming that's what the data supports, but I'd be interested to see what the data actually shows and if there's a meaningful (non-politically slanted) way to show that?

[Tyler durden]

I've always found that premise interesting...but have never actually taken the time to see if the data backs it up. I always chalked it up to politics. The party removed from power will always claim that the current party's success is actually a result of all the previous administration's work when things are going well...and when things aren't going well, they just point to how poor a job the current admin is doing without regard for it being a result of the previous administration's policy. Sort of a "it's going well, then we did that...it's going poorly, then you did that" dynamic at play. I'm not claiming that's what the data supports, but I'd be interested to see what the data actually shows and if there's a meaningful (non-politically slanted) way to show that?

I dont know how you could ever remove political bias or the influence of macro trends. Depending on how some view policies and the pros and cons of each policy is difficult to tease out whats what.

Lets say we take current conditions on a slightly more granular level right now.

The states with the lowest unemployment rate are - Nebraska, Utah, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Idaho, Vermont, Alabama, Montana, and Oklahoma.

All run by Republicans...

The states with the highest unemployment rate are - Connecticut, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Hawaii, New York and Illinois & Pennsylvania.

All run by Democrats...

As someone said upthread maybe its all just coincidence :)

[LennStar]

The question here is more: Is correlation causation? And if yes, in what direction? Generally "leftist" parties get voted for more if the lower classes are in a bad economic situation.

Of course that is a general direction, it may be different is the US because it's the US, and I know for sure that most people who voted the right wing neonazi party AfD here in Germany (and who were from the lower income side), did not read their program. Or perhaps getting to blame Syrian refugees for their misery was more important to them than not increasing that misery.

Agreed. I'd one up you and say good infrastructure could be multi decade. Having the best roads/bridges airports to move things and people around.

Uhm... no. You already have too much of this, that is part of your problem. You have waaay to many expensive car infrastructure.

I mean some of those suburb streets with nothing but single family houses would count as a 3x3 highway over here, so wide as they are.
How do you think can someone who lives in a sub 100K house afford to pay for a street that costs several thousands each year? Not to mention all the rest. 

[JLee]

The question here is more: Is correlation causation? And if yes, in what direction? Generally "leftist" parties get voted for more if the lower classes are in a bad economic situation.

Of course that is a general direction, it may be different is the US because it's the US, and I know for sure that most people who voted the right wing neonazi party AfD here in Germany (and who were from the lower income side), did not read their program. Or perhaps getting to blame Syrian refugees for their misery was more important to them than not increasing that misery.

Agreed. I'd one up you and say good infrastructure could be multi decade. Having the best roads/bridges airports to move things and people around.

Uhm... no. You already have too much of this, that is part of your problem. You have waaay to many expensive car infrastructure.

I mean some of those suburb streets with nothing but single family houses would count as a 3x3 highway over here, so wide as they are.
How do you think can someone who lives in a sub 100K house afford to pay for a street that costs several thousands each year? Not to mention all the rest.

I suspect that the sub 100k houses aren't on the sorts of streets you're envisioning, lol. Local streets are generally paid for by property taxes.  The federal government was involved in building the interstate highway system.

[FIPurpose]

I've always found that premise interesting...but have never actually taken the time to see if the data backs it up. I always chalked it up to politics. The party removed from power will always claim that the current party's success is actually a result of all the previous administration's work when things are going well...and when things aren't going well, they just point to how poor a job the current admin is doing without regard for it being a result of the previous administration's policy. Sort of a "it's going well, then we did that...it's going poorly, then you did that" dynamic at play. I'm not claiming that's what the data supports, but I'd be interested to see what the data actually shows and if there's a meaningful (non-politically slanted) way to show that?

I dont know how you could ever remove political bias or the influence of macro trends. Depending on how some view policies and the pros and cons of each policy is difficult to tease out whats what.

Lets say we take current conditions on a slightly more granular level right now.

The states with the lowest unemployment rate are - Nebraska, Utah, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Idaho, Vermont, Alabama, Montana, and Oklahoma.

All run by Republicans...

The states with the highest unemployment rate are - Connecticut, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Hawaii, New York and Illinois & Pennsylvania.

All run by Democrats...

As someone said upthread maybe its all just coincidence :)

I would question your judgement on who is running Vermont and Pennsylvania.

[EvenSteven]

The question here is more: Is correlation causation? And if yes, in what direction? Generally "leftist" parties get voted for more if the lower classes are in a bad economic situation.

Of course that is a general direction, it may be different is the US because it's the US, and I know for sure that most people who voted the right wing neonazi party AfD here in Germany (and who were from the lower income side), did not read their program. Or perhaps getting to blame Syrian refugees for their misery was more important to them than not increasing that misery.

Agreed. I'd one up you and say good infrastructure could be multi decade. Having the best roads/bridges airports to move things and people around.

Uhm... no. You already have too much of this, that is part of your problem. You have waaay to many expensive car infrastructure.

I mean some of those suburb streets with nothing but single family houses would count as a 3x3 highway over here, so wide as they are.
How do you think can someone who lives in a sub 100K house afford to pay for a street that costs several thousands each year? Not to mention all the rest.

I suspect that the sub 100k houses aren't on the sorts of streets you're envisioning, lol. Local streets are generally paid for by property taxes.  The federal government was involved in building the interstate highway system.

Also, "good infrastructure" does not mean "more car infrastructure." Having bridges crumble and collapse killing hundreds of people is not a good way to reduce the amount of road infrastructure.