slug.com slug.com

4 5

Dems start 'enemies list' to go after people who supported Trump, including Federal Judges he appointed-
[redstate.com]

SpikeTalon 10 Nov 7
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

3

This is so childish I can't imagine anyone taking it seriously. I also can't imagine a court that would allow it.

I'd like to hear from one of our Democrat members here....does anyone think this is appropriate? If so, why?

To a certain extent, yes. Our democracy cannot stand if people in authority purposely disseminate disinformation - when it becomes impossible to distinguish between opinion and information. When people make unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud, for example, we as citizen need to understand that this is opinion and not information. Our citizenry expects our leaders to be relatively honest. We expect politicians to be dishonest in their campaigns, but campaigning is mostly about opinions, not information. But a president can't run the country based solely on opinion, he or she needs facts and accurate information. Trump clearly showed that he was not interested in running the country. He was constantly in campaign mode. His proclamations were consistently ambiguous and often contradictory, which simply leads to poor leadership. And the country has had enough of it. We need a steadier hand at the helm. Whether Biden can provide that steadier hand, we will have to wait and see. Having said that, I don't support retaliation against people for political reasons. I didn't support Trump's constant calls to have his perceived political enemies locked up (Hillary and Bill Clinton, McCabe, Comey and others) and his interference in cases involving his friends (Stone, Flynn ...). And I don't support the Democrats doing those kinds of things either.

@TyKC You've made a case for why Trump might be put on an enemies list, but that shouldn't extend to his supporters. That would be crazy. there are a thousand reasons why somebody might support someone in office, any number of which could have nothing to do with the supposedly egregious acts that would warrant the kind of action AOC is talking about.

@coalburned I didn't see anything about an enemies list accept in the article's title, put there for added emotional impact I suspect. What AOC was inferring to was that someone should document what certain people say, who said it and when so those people cannot deny what they said in the future. I see nothing sinister in that. That's all part of what politicians do. Admittedly, this seems like an exercise in futility. I see no inclination on the part of the the "new GOP" to hold their politicians to their word or conviction. Examples are not hard to find.

@TyKC So you don't see the probability of AOC's remarks further encouraging censorship of people on the Right? Or more aggressive attempts to "cancel" those who don't buy the Left's narratives? Time will tell, of course...

@coalburned Holding people accountable for spewing disinformation is not censorship. No one is suggesting the suppressing of thoughtful dissent. What is concerning is indoctrination through deception by those who hold positions of power and authority and the systematic suppression of thoughtful critique.

@TyKC And do you see that indoctrination as a problem only on the right? I'm all for accountability (Rissia-gate anyone?), but I'd like to know what measures would be taken against said sycophants.

@coalburned Oh no. I see it on the post-modern left, maybe even worse of a problem there. I don't know what measures should be taken against the sycophants anymore than I know what measures should be taken against a cult. But I don't think they should be given a voice if there MO is to spread disinformation.

4

Just more proof and confirmation of what I've always said... PROGRESSIVES CANNOT TOLERATE DISSENT.

5

I'm pretty confused as to what Twitter considers "hate speech" or "inciting violence". Out of all the ridiculous fact checks, misleading flags, censors, bans, and suppressed reach, doxxing or requests for doxxing is one I actually agree should censored. Yet, time after time, I've seen the practice largely ignored by big tech.

When I came across AOCs post on Twitter, untouched by mod hands, it just added to my confusion. I guess the other perspective is because it's to hold big donors accountable? I'm still at a loss as to what that means exactly.


AOC AND LEFT TWITTER LIST

[slug.com]

Occasional Cortex is clearly unhinged. Kamala is a psychopath, but AOC is just a very pretty , appealing to airhead young POMOs, disconnected from reality because mummy still provides everything, never worked in a real job, never got their fingernails dirty, convinced there's a magic tree, demand compensation for calling a he a she..babies; infants. She is thoroughly nasty.

3

Intended to intimidate.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:147863
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.