4 ms·

Scary stuff, I feel like I'm slowly watching as the U.S turns into a one party state, and enforced by the government itself. We argue about how it's okay for p

Scary stuff, I feel like I'm slowly watching as the U.S turns into a one party state, and enforced by the government itself. We argue about how it's okay for private companies to censor whatever they feel like, but what if it's the government pressuring them to do so? They themselves in this letter mention that 50% of Americans get their news from TV, and many American's have one choice of Cable provider, and even if they have 2 or 3, that's just 2 or 3 companies you have to pressure into delisting news sources of your choosing to make them essentially unreachable for the vast majority of the population. The next step I feel is obviously blocking websites, again Americans only have 1 or 2 options of internet providers, and in this case they'd already have pressured them into censoring cable, so why not ask the same companies to censor the internet? Steps like this just make me think that one side clearly doesn't plan on ever being able to lose an election again, and with actions available such as adding new states, adding 12-20 million new voters (illegal immigrants), I can see why they feel that way. Any authoritarian steps taken in democracy are usually balanced by the fact the other side could do the same when in power. If you simply never lose power, that's not an issue.

minikites 6y ago
Which party is the "one party" here?
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  Probably the one with the presidency, house, senate, most of the media, and social media content moderation.
  - minikites 6y ago
    I just don't understand the parent post, the Democrats want MORE people to be able to vote, how is that "planning to never lose an election again"? The Republicans are the only ones who ever fight to suppress votes, most recently the attacks on absentee voting in Georgia, which are a direct result of two Democrats winning there and has absolutely nothing to do with "illegal immigrants" or election security on any level. Which one sounds more like "planning to never lose an election again", the scheme where more people vote or the scheme where fewer people vote?
    - mnouquet 6y ago
      > I just don't understand the parent post, the Democrats want MORE people to be able to vote Including dead people ? </sarcasm>
    - bpodgursky 6y ago
      The point in question is not whether it is justified or moral single-party rule. It is whether there is a shift towards single-party dominance.
      - minikites 6y ago
        So how does "more people voting" lead to single-party dominance? I only see one party working for that goal, and it isn't the Democratic party.
        bpodgursky 6y ago
        > I only see one party working for that goal I mean, that's silly — any political party would love single-party dominance. Democrats want "more people voting" because their thesis is that most disengaged or non-voters would default Democrat. It's fine if you believe is that "more people voting is good for democracy" but it's not the reason that the Democrats are focused on getting more people ballots.
        minikites 6y ago
        The Democrats know they have popular ideas, I fail to see how that's a sinister motive as you imply.
mnouquet 6y ago
> We argue about how it's okay for private companies to censor whatever they feel like, but what if it's the government pressuring them to do so? Of course, make no mistake, we're about to see plenty of legislation entrenching big tech positions ! Also, it's well-know NYT and other media conspired to sell the war against Iraq. Even though it was a different administration, the same people were in power behind the scene.
cozuya 6y ago
Citation to Democrats "wanting to add 12-20 million illegal immigrant voters". An outrageous claim.
- ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
  Whenever you hear path to citizenship, that does entail voting. [1]https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/16/politics/biden-immigration-legislation-pathway-to-citizenship/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/16/politics/biden-immigration-le...
- mynameishere 6y ago
  Outrageous, yes, but not an outrageous claim. (It's probably on the low side.) However, it is worded badly. They won't be "illegal" anymore because they will have been handed a "pathway to citizenship". It's strange that a core part of the Democratic plan for this country is considered an "outrageous claim". That's a sign of just how strong disinformation actually is in the media.

minikites 6y ago

Which party is the "one party" here?

bpodgursky 6y ago
Probably the one with the presidency, house, senate, most of the media, and social media content moderation.
- minikites 6y ago
  I just don't understand the parent post, the Democrats want MORE people to be able to vote, how is that "planning to never lose an election again"? The Republicans are the only ones who ever fight to suppress votes, most recently the attacks on absentee voting in Georgia, which are a direct result of two Democrats winning there and has absolutely nothing to do with "illegal immigrants" or election security on any level. Which one sounds more like "planning to never lose an election again", the scheme where more people vote or the scheme where fewer people vote?
  - mnouquet 6y ago
    > I just don't understand the parent post, the Democrats want MORE people to be able to vote Including dead people ? </sarcasm>
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    The point in question is not whether it is justified or moral single-party rule. It is whether there is a shift towards single-party dominance.
    - minikites 6y ago
      So how does "more people voting" lead to single-party dominance? I only see one party working for that goal, and it isn't the Democratic party.
      - bpodgursky 6y ago
        > I only see one party working for that goal I mean, that's silly — any political party would love single-party dominance. Democrats want "more people voting" because their thesis is that most disengaged or non-voters would default Democrat. It's fine if you believe is that "more people voting is good for democracy" but it's not the reason that the Democrats are focused on getting more people ballots.
        minikites 6y ago
        The Democrats know they have popular ideas, I fail to see how that's a sinister motive as you imply.

mnouquet 6y ago

> We argue about how it's okay for private companies to censor whatever they feel like, but what if it's the government pressuring them to do so? Of course, make no mistake, we're about to see plenty of legislation entrenching big tech positions ! Also, it's well-know NYT and other media conspired to sell the war against Iraq. Even though it was a different administration, the same people were in power behind the scene.

cozuya 6y ago

Citation to Democrats "wanting to add 12-20 million illegal immigrant voters". An outrageous claim.

ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
Whenever you hear path to citizenship, that does entail voting. [1]https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/16/politics/biden-immigration-legislation-pathway-to-citizenship/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/16/politics/biden-immigration-le...
mynameishere 6y ago
Outrageous, yes, but not an outrageous claim. (It's probably on the low side.) However, it is worded badly. They won't be "illegal" anymore because they will have been handed a "pathway to citizenship". It's strange that a core part of the Democratic plan for this country is considered an "outrageous claim". That's a sign of just how strong disinformation actually is in the media.