Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

[Glennfs]

It's not partisan to keep people from openly plotting and attempting to overthrow the duly elected government. I realize you may be in favor, but it's still attempted insurrection.

Remember Bill Clinton's rapid response team. It was part of his political organization completely separate from government.
If Biden is worried about misinformation that is what he should have done.
Not start a ministry of truth.

[gounion]

Remember Bill Clinton's rapid response team. It was part of his political organization completely separate from government.
If Biden is worried about misinformation that is what he should have done.
Not start a ministry of truth.

Bob Dole didn't have the Russians aid him in an ongoing attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States.

[carmenjonze]

Remember Bill Clinton's rapid response team. It was part of his political organization completely separate from government.
If Biden is worried about misinformation that is what he should have done.
Not start a ministry of truth.

^this type of repeated propaganda works really well on undereducated people. The more undereducated you are, the easier you are to manipulate with doublespeak.

It's the entire point of 1984.

It's also why you fall for doublespeak like anti-Affirmative Action laws labeled "Civil Rights Bills," and anti-LGBTQ laws under the guise of "religious freedom."

You guys only want the "religious freedom" to get the government to impose conservative Christianity onto the populace, and hold others back so you can thrive. Just as you guys did in the days of Jim Crow and Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[ProfX]

1. It's not a tool for assuring merely election security. It deals with other kinds of disinformation besides political/electoral. It has nothing to do with Biden's re-election, assuming he does run again in 2024.
2. Efforts to combat disinformation by a variety of existing government agencies have been going on for years. This is just a clearinghouse and coordinating center for activities that have already been underway.

And yes, the topic of this thread is what Sec Pete said in his video.

[gounion]

And yes, the topic of this thread is what Sec Pete said in his video.

...and that's the ONE thing neither Glenn nor Joe will EVER really address.

[Glennfs]

1. It's not a tool for assuring merely election security. It deals with other kinds of disinformation besides political/electoral. It has nothing to do with Biden's re-election, assuming he does run again in 2024.
2. Efforts to combat disinformation by a variety of existing government agencies has been going on for years. This is just a clearinghouse and coordinating center for activities that have already been underway.

And yes, the topic of this thread is what Sec Pete said in his video.

If it takes root in 10 years it's power will have significantly increased from its original mandate.
That and the track record of the person put in charge is that of a 100pct partisan political hack.
Not an independent person like those we see as AG or FBI director.

[carmenjonze]

...and that's the ONE thing neither Glenn nor Joe will EVER really address.

Because they didn't watch it.

But like typical, entitled, supremacist conservative white males, they have no problem blabbering on and on about topics they have utterly zero clues about.

[carmenjonze]

If it takes root in 10 years it's power will have significantly increased from its original mandate.
That and the track record of the person put in charge is that of a 100pct partisan political hack.
Not an independent person like those we see as AG or FBI director.

Watched the video, yet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ysZYwjuFes

Or would you rather keep avoiding it and proving the OP right.

Choice is yours.

[gounion]

If it takes root in 10 years it's power will have significantly increased from its original mandate.
That and the track record of the person put in charge is that of a 100pct partisan political hack.
Not an independent person like those we see as AG or FBI director.

Let's just remember Trump's AG was simply a political hack.

What the GOP is and has been doing is far more sinister than anything Biden would do.

But go ahead, keep defending the ongoing attempt at overthrowing our duly elected government.

[gounion]

Because they didn't watch it.

But like typical, entitled, supremacist conservative white males, they have no problem blabbering on and on about topics they have utterly zero clues about.

I'm quite sure Glenn watched it, but that's why he won't address it. He'd have to admit that Pete makes great points, and he can't refute any of them.

And Joe revels in ignorance.

[ProfX]

Let's just remember Trump's AG was simply a political hack.

With respect, the Board's director has said some things that are critical of Republicans, yes, but I do not think she is a political "hack". She has experience on cybersecurity and cyber-attacks, and that is why she was chosen.

{from Wiki]
After the board was formed, Nina Jankowicz was named executive director. She was previously a fellow at the Wilson Center, advised the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry as part of the Fulbright Public Policy Fellowship, oversaw Russia and Belarus programs at the National Democratic Institute, and wrote the book How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News, and the Future of Conflict.[5][6][7] Robert P. Silvers and Jennifer Daskal were also named to hold leadership positions on the board.
[end]

Please note: given Russia's extensive use of disinformation in their war with Ukraine, it is not an accident she is familiar with that region.

[Glennfs]

Let's just remember Trump's AG was simply a political hack.

What the GOP is and has been doing is far more sinister than anything Biden would do.

But go ahead, keep defending the ongoing attempt at overthrowing our duly elected government.

Yes he was and he isn't the first nor will he be tug he last.
But as a general rule our AGs. FBI directors and CIA directors are pretty straightforward and leave politics out of their jobs as much as possible.
The same can't be said of thg he person Biden appointed

[Glennfs]

With respect, the Board's director has said some things that are critical of Republicans, yes, but I do not think she is a political "hack". She has experience on cybersecurity and cyber-attacks, and that is why she was chosen.

The problem is she can't be trusted to use the same measure when disinformation is hurting the GOP as she will use when it is hurting the Democratic party.
The person he appointed is 100pct partisan.

[carmenjonze]

The problem is she can't be trusted to use the same measure when disinformation is hurting the GOP as she will use when it is hurting the Democratic party.
The person he appointed is 100pct partisan.

Any comments on the actual thread topic, which is the Pete Buttigieg video?

It's about how conservatives are using the law to restrict individual rights, starting with you guys' anti-trans and Don't Say Gay laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ysZYwjuFes

[gounion]

On the issue of the OP video, there's a big reason our conservatives won't comment about losing freedoms: They don't give a shit.

Look, they're both past the time to need to buy contraceptives, they can't get pregnant, they aren't married to black people, and they aren't gay, so none of these freedoms concern them personally.

And if they had a loved one that needed an abortion, they can both afford to send them to wherever, even Mexico, to get one.

They simply don't care about anyone else's freedom. They're fine with religious zealots running our nation.

They both would be fine with the Supreme Court telling gay people they were no longer married. They're fine with politicians making medical decisions for women. They don't care how many women die because of this.

Because they don't see any of this affecting them, and that's all they care about.

[Glennfs]

Any comments on the actual thread topic, which is the Pete Buttigieg video?

It's about how conservatives are using the law to restrict individual rights, starting with you guys' anti-trans and Don't Say Gay laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ysZYwjuFes

As I said he is a charismatic speaker who will probably be on the presidential ballot in 2 years as either president or VP

[gounion]

As I said he is a charismatic speaker who will probably be on the presidential ballot in 2 years as either president or VP

Thank you for proving my point.

[carmenjonze]

As I said he is a charismatic speaker who will probably be on the presidential ballot in 2 years as either president or VP

These are platitudes that everybody already knows about Pete Buttigieg.

And yet, around 5 1/2 minutes in he talks about how antigay laws like the Don't Say Gay law you support, affect him personally.

Since you can't refute what he and many of us around here have been saying about these bills and measures you support, let alone every LGBTQ group in the country, you toss up smokescreens like every conservative white's favorite token, Clarence Thomas, and then start crowing about completely unrelated subjects.

[carmenjonze]

On the issue of the OP video, there's a big reason our conservatives won't comment about losing freedoms: They don't give a shit.

Or one worse - they simply agree with the government restricting everyone else's rights, while their insurrectionist, confederate peers try to overturn elections.

Look, they're both past the time to need to buy contraceptives, they can't get pregnant, they aren't married to black people, and they aren't gay, so none of these freedoms concern them personally.

And if they had a loved one that needed an abortion, they can both afford to send them to wherever, even Mexico, to get one.

They simply don't care about anyone else's freedom. They're fine with religious zealots running our nation.

They both would be fine with the Supreme Court telling gay people they were no longer married. They're fine with politicians making medical decisions for women. They don't care how many women die because of this.

Because they don't see any of this affecting them, and that's all they care about.

Yes. And, having a government that once again violently imposes white conservatism on the populace does concern them. It's why these particular people vote Republican and are conservatives, to begin with.

IDK if Pete Buttigieg addressed this since it's not in the clip, but these antigay, antitrans, antiabort, anti-contraception measures are also directly tied to their voter disenfranchisement measures, and the weakening of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, back in 2013 (Shelby County v Holder).

Minority disenfranchisement in the voting booth is extremely important to these people -- it has been since 1870. 150 years later, they still have the same attitudes about it. They used to murder us over it.

[Glennfs]

Or one worse - they simply agree with the government restricting everyone else's rights, while their insurrectionist, confederate peers try to overturn elections.



Yes. And, having a government that once again violently imposes white conservatism on the populace does concern them. It's why these particular people vote Republican and are conservatives, to begin with.

IDK if Pete Buttigieg addressed this since it's not in the clip, but these antigay, antitrans, antiabort, anti-contraception measures are also directly tied to their voter disenfranchisement measures, and the weakening of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, back in 2013 (Shelby County v Holder).

Minority disenfranchisement in the voting booth is extremely important to these people -- it has been since 1870. 150 years later, they still have the same attitudes about it. They used to murder us over it.

So what in your opinion constitutes a person who is anti gay or anti trans.

Would a person who agrees with you on everything except sports participation be considered anti trans.

As for anti gay would a person who doesn't believe it is appropriate to discuss adult relationships or sexuality with a 5 year old be considered anti gay. If so is that person also anti hetro for believing the same about all sexuality and adult relationships

[JoeMemphis]

It's not partisan to keep people from openly plotting and attempting to overthrow the duly elected government. I realize you may be in favor, but it's still attempted insurrection.

Nah. I don’t worry about insurrection. Government isn’t that easy to overthrow. But that’s not my problem. That’s Merrick Garland’s area. He seems competent enough to get to the bottom of it without any help from me.

I’m still waiting on you to provide some reference to the “primary sources” you mentioned. May I suggest checking your ass. That’s where you get most of your “facts”. It’s easy to find. It’s where you keep your head.

[Drak]

Got a list I’d those medical professionals yet?

[carmenjonze]

So what in your opinion constitutes a person who is anti gay or anti trans.

Very clearly, as I have told you about ten thousand times, a good example of an antigay and antitrans person is someone like you who proclaims on an anonymous message board how progay and protrans you are, yet you also acknowledge voting consistently for the most anti-LGBTQ legislators in the country. You also vociferously support draconian censorship and exclusion laws like the Don't Say Gay bill, the slew of anti-CRT laws, and anti-trans bathroom and sports laws.

These laws are not about "parental rights," they discriminate against nontraditional and nonconservative parents.

That's why you vote for them, and the politicians that make them.

[gounion]

Nah. I don’t worry about insurrection. Government isn’t that easy to overthrow. But that’s not my problem. That’s Merrick Garland’s area. He seems competent enough to get to the bottom of it without any help from me.

I’m still waiting on you to provide some reference to the “primary sources” you mentioned. May I suggest checking your ass. That’s where you get most of your “facts”. It’s easy to find. It’s where you keep your head.

Why? If I gave you a link you wouldn't click on it. You revel in your ignorance. You don't have a problem with the Russian government interfering in our election. I do.

[carmenjonze]

As for anti gay would a person who doesn't believe it is appropriate to discuss adult relationships or sexuality with a 5 year old be considered anti gay.

This leading question is itself an antigay canard. See below.

If so is that person also anti hetro for believing the same about all sexuality and adult relationships

What a stupid question. It tells me you did not watch the video, at all.

"Heteros" not only discuss their sexuality and relationships with 5 year olds, they impose their sexuality and lifestyle on 5 year olds and younger.

If you had any LGBTQ people in your life that trust you enough to be out to you, you'd already know that a lot of you start heterosexual indoctrination as soon as a kid can walk. The point of these bills you support is to silence queer teachers, queer kids, and kids in queer-headed families.

You can watch the video and prove the OP wrong, or keep avoiding it, and prove the OP right. Choice is yours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ysZYwjuFes