I put this into the same bucket as I put the weak and unsupported allegations against Biden. There needs to be much more to take them seriously.
Nikki Haley is trending up!
- Thread starter Aloha Hoosier
- Start date
Except it’s a pattern with Trump. He’s already been found guilty by a court of law for one instance and has over a dozen accusations of sexual abuse.
Of course she is Aloha. Of course.She remains my favorite in the race. At some point we need to get down to one alternative to Trump and she could be the one.
‘The rise is real’: Haley’s breakout is jolting 2024’s undercard race
The former South Carolina governor is the reason Ron DeSantis can’t call 2024 a “two-man race” anymore.www.politico.com
Yes she is.
The unfit nut you support wants to prosecute the media, political opponents and perceived enemies (and everyone is an enemy in his mind), and execute military officers.
Yeah...I don't know what she is thinking there. Which is why she isn't #1. The boring awkward guy is.
I’m not sure what she’s thinking either. We definitely have a ton of misinformation out there and a ton of people unable or unwilling to recognize it as misinformation. Social media has exposed Americans as far less intelligent and civil than I used to think they were.
She’s not really a conservative is the answer. I’m not sure she knows what she stands for.
Last edited:
I would still vote for her over Biden. She’s just informed when it comes to conservative positions. She’ll throw some crazy statement out like the previous clip you posted.
Last edited:
I think this is probably right. "More government intrusion" is almost never the right answer.
I effing TOLD you people this would come up again. MAGA is scared of Haley! No reason to pull the infidelity card otherwise.
If it was Trump…….it would be the hugest bulge, greatest bulge ever. Like Mt. Everest size bulge.
That sounds like a really bad entry to Penthouse Forum.
Maybe she just didn't realize the implications of what she was saying? But I think she's repeated it since. Not good.
Scared? The freakin broad wants to attach your real name to all social media platforms so they can track you easier? She just cancelled herself.
It might make your life simpler, without all your burner accounts and alternate user names
Nimrata has to be dumber than a sack of rocks. Does she not realize that she's running for the Republican nomination and not the Governor of one the craziest states in the country?
next she'll be criminalizing sending packages without complete return addresses.
Is this true? Cause I’d really feel a lot better to know there aren’t that many conspiracy theorists out there.
What exactly makes New York a crazy state in your mind? Is it crazier than Florida? I can give you lots of examples of Florida Man.
If this dismantles social media, her proposal is a good thing. Social media’s dishonest messaging is not the friend of conservatives. Social media manipulation of public opinion about COVID may have turned election results.
Anonymous opinions are not what builds sound and vibrant public discourse .
Nope. The problem isn’t attaching my name to anything. The problem is, as you say, the “they.” We can’t fight the ”they” with one who promises to use the justice system for investigations and retribution.
It wouldn’t dismantle anything. Social media wouldn’t go away. The state would just control it with her proposals. It’s anti free speech and something the left and right should be against.
Wait. You know you’re quoting Trump there, right? I will be your retribution… https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news...-at-cpac-as-he-relaunches-bid-for-white-house
Just in case you missed it
I’ve been thinking about this. Why does social media need to be anonymous? When it was free speech in the public square we all knew who was speaking. We have people here linking anonymous people spreading misinformation. Shouldn’t we know who these people are? Qanon was/is anonymous. Is that a good thing? Alex Jones is not anonymous and that’s a good thing, isn’t it?
Last edited:
It didn’t control the speech of MLK, John Birch, Malcom X, F, Douglas, Rush Limbaugh, CSNY, Bob Dylan, etc., etc..
it doesn’t have to be, but individuals and businesses should have the choice to be anonymous. It protects individuals from oppressive governments or corporations. Should newspapers or media have to reveal their anonymous sources? Should government agencies have to reveal their informants? The answer to all those questions is no in my opinion.
Getting rid of anonymous people isn’t going to stop the spread of misinformation. The government and MSM have been spreading misinformation forever and they’ll never stop.
I’m indifferent to Qanon or Alex Jones. I can figure out which information is important or is nonsense without knowing their names.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by anonymous businesses.
Sources of legitimate journalism may be anonymous, and is probably good, but the writers aren’t. This is different than anonymous, self-proclaimed journalists and unvetted sources on social media.
I worded it poorly. I was trying say businesses should have the option to have anonymous posters if they choose that business model.
I was making the connection that there is a reason the sources are anonymous and we should extend the same latitude to people on social media.
I’m not worried about those people. I’m worried about normal people who want to express their opinions without political or personal backlash from governments or employers. I want more decentralization of power. And less centralization of power to a few major corporations and governments.
Because it would serve to squelch free speech.
Pseudonyms and the Debate over the Constitution
The most prolific and profound public debate in American history occurred over ratifying the Constitution in 1787–1790. Much of this debate occurred in the print media—newspapers, broadsides, and pamphlets. Thousands of anonymous essays signed with …
csac.history.wisc.edu
By businesses, you mean social media platforms? If so, aren’t those platforms the equivalent of the public square? Just think what the interaction here would be like here if we weren’t anonymous. Some of us were here back in the day when we weren’t all anonymous and we had to have legitimate email addresses in our signatures. Discourse was more civil.
Sources being anonymous, but vetted by real journalists, is different from anonymous people on social media claiming to cite sources, or be sources. The default on those people should be skepticism, but that isn’t what’s happening.
Similar threads
