US US Politics General 2 - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

​

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/

 

[Danann]

quick question do you masturbate to porn at all

You're just trying to pick fights, aren't ya?

 

[Conan]

Yeah hide behind your non-sequiturs and made up quotes because the second you address the actual issue you would look like a clown.

I'm sorry you've chosen the side of trannies and drag queens who also advocate for the dissemination pornographic materials to minors.
Bizarre choice but addicts rarely choose after a certain point.

 

[Delany's Donkey]

A faggot in a robe might interrupt the law incorrectly in terms of hate speech so we can't allow anyone to apply the law correctly in terms of obscenity.

You lolbertarians are fucking retards.

my argument is porn isn't speech and not protected by the first amendment, has no right to exist in general and we should go after these sites with the existing, constitutional and established laws. this bill you're wincing about is unneeded to accomplish this.

you don't want I.D requirements for fear of government overreach (even though this law already is in 16 states and you need to show I.D for multiple other Vices online like buying alcohol in all 50), fine. but don't act like porn is the bedrock of free speech, is what the founders (a bunch of religious protestants who were descendants of puritans) had in mind when writing the first amendment and is the only thing keep us from a communist dictatorship, it's fucking retarded and ahistorical.

We would be justified morally, constitutionally and legally prosecuting every porn site under existing obscenity laws and I'm tired of listening to mouth breathing libertarians acting like it would be a betrayal of the very concept of America itself to enforce laws that have been on the books for 220+ years and we only stopped enforcing in the 60s-70s.

 

[ForTheHoard]

This whole regulating obscenity thing is growing on me. Maybe we can collaborate with Liz Fong Jones to get some corporate money behind it. We can call it #EndKiwiFarms.

 

[Neil McCauley]

Do you guys let your kids walk into sex toy shops? Then why would you give them
unmonitored internet access and then blame the site owners for your lack of attention to what your kids are up to? Porn or not there is bad shit on the internet nowadays your kids don’t need to see.

 

[Mister Fister]

Kinda funny you conservatives drop your "end federal government overreach" when it comes to something you don't want your kids to have access to, and are completely unaware that you're just becoming more like democrats when you say that...

Cram it, you only give a shit about the law if you can use it to hurt Americans.

 

[Dr J]

The main issue I have is people arguing that an ID for accessing Internet porn is somehow going to lead to an ID to access the web itself I don't think laws specifically designed to require ID for accessing porn will then be used to require an ID to access everything.

Then you're a fool, and you have no imagination.

For fuck's sake, we are five years out from 'Two Weeks to Flatten the Curve' and you think the Government won't immediately abuse any new power given it. It's like you've developed amnesia

KIWIFARMS IS NOT A PORN SITE YOU STUPID NIGGER

It's not just porn sites, it's any site with user generated content where porn could potentially be shared. That includes this one. That includes Google or any search engine. Plebbit, Twatter, Kikebook, you name it.

 

[Day of the Cope]

my argument is porn isn't speech and not protected by the first amendment

Burning the flag isn't speech but it's protected by the First Amendment.

 

[Toy Soldier]

Can you all shut the fuck up and post actual news?

 

[X Prime]

Burning the flag isn't speech but it's protected by the First Amendment.

This is a bad argument; the protection is arguably only true because it's seen as a left-wing activity.

 

[Historical Strelkov]

has no right to exist

You can't argue anything based on this.
Anyone can say this about anything.
"Should" is where a lot of this conversation actually is.

 

[blackface enthusiast]

snip

Kill yourself nigger. Respond to what I actually posted or don't quote me. Don't make up some strawman quote that makes your faggy little argument sound better in your head and then include it in your retarded post.

 

[>IMPLYING]

Can you all shut the fuck up and post actual news?

Britain's porn crackdown: Ofcom reveals the exact date you'll have to prove you're over-18 to access hundreds of adult sites like Pornhub
Sorry, I panicked!

 

[Irredemable Retardation]

As much as I hate porn and coomers, it's painful to admit that it feels like a trojan horse for censorship (even if slowly) Besides, most "normies" do not know about the rabbit hole of porn's evil, and will go wild on it. Openly going against porn is politically problematic.

 

[Professor Donger]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-poised-accept-palace-sky-gift-trump/story?id=121680511

Mald Leftists Mald

 

[X Prime]

I really want to know why we have had a couple users lately who use altered fonts. What started this trend?

 

[Storytime]

You're just trying to pick fights, aren't ya?

you're really gonna avoid that question? it's pretty simple dude

It's not just porn sites, it's any site with user generated content where porn could potentially be shared. That includes this one. That includes Google or any search engine. Plebbit, Twatter, Kikebook, you name it.

that's a problem with the legislation not the idea

 

[Delany's Donkey]

You can't argue anything based on this.
Anyone can say this about anything.
"Should" is where a lot of this conversation actually is.

porn is legally not protected under the first amendment and has no legal right to exist as confirmed by SCOTUS.

 

[browserbowser]

This man is unfortunately correct. It's not even about the red strikethroughs, it's that there are a lot of users on various websites who only start making passionate arguments about free speech and slippery slopes when the banning of pornography, particularly lolicon, comes up.

Are the arguments they use somewhat technically plausible? Maybe to some. The problem is that on a basic social instinct level it looks really bad when there is a noticeable pattern of behavior with a specific conversational trigger. These types destroy the credibility of their own side if this is detected, and then also the credibility of people who make the same argument with purer motives.

It's simply the reality of it. People who make the kinds of arguments this poster is referencing just do not have a media apparatus suppressing every negative thing they do like the LGBTQ+. They make themselves and others look bad.

It's interesting how when liberals call cuckservatives racist for wanting to stop illegal immigration, closeted faggots for not wanting gay marriage, or misogynists/incels for not wanting abortion to be legally unlimited in scope using the same logic it's easy as anything for you types to see that it's illogical horseshit.

When it's someone pointing out something like, oh I don't know, the fact that the Patriot Act had the exact same beat-for-beat 'you're with us or you're with the terrorists'/'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' bullshit behind it only for it to fifteen years later be the legal apparatus through which the spying on Donald Trump's campaign, and debanking dissidents, was made possible, all of a sudden this completely batshit mental line of guilt by association reasoning is totally okay.

Truly, an interesting phenomenon.

 

[W@rui]

>U.S. Announces China Trade Deal in Geneva