CouchPotato

I wonder if myata liked the Republican party before Trump came along. I sincerely doubt it. Who are the normal Republicans, myata?

I think many people suffering from TDS are actually the biggest Trump supporters deep down. I call it Repressed Trumpuality. robosmith and myata suffer from this worse than anyone. Of course, they would deny that they are closeted Trump supporters, but denial is the most revealing sign.

I am starting to wonder if Kamala might suffer from dissociative identity disorder. This accent sounds a bit different from her southern one.

Song time.

In the past couple weeks, I've seen some actual criticism of her from CNN, NYT, etc.

To me it just sounds like a strategy to win now. She hasn't changed her mind. Protecting the border, fracking, etc. None of these will really be priorities for the Democrats once she gets in.

I mean society at large. It's just my observation and subjective one. I remember the lunch room at different jobs where I worked being a noisy place full of conversation years ago. A few years after smartphones became prevalent the lunch room had the quiet atmosphere of a library full of people scrolling through phone screens. Just my own personal experience perhaps. I also feel that people just seem different socially since covid. Maybe it's just me.

This is true. But what is going on with Kamala doesn't come across as some natural progression toward new view points. Most of these flip flops occurred after she became a presidential candidate. So it makes one question the legitimacy of her shift toward certain policies and whether she will actually follow through.

This is your response to CdnFox and WestCanMan consistently besting you in debate. Makes you look butthurt.

But to compromise with racism..... I don't think I can vote Democrat anymore.

I think that smartphones and then covid have affected us psychologically.

I would. I love those.

I am the liberal version of Michael Hardner.

This is one of those Babylon Bee headlines that's kind of scary because it seems plausible.

Where did I say it was revolutionary? It is simply wrong. No man has the right to decide for another what views he can hear. I do? Why thank you, Mr. Hardner. It's sure swell that we have you to let us know what ideas are worthy of consideration.

Yes. Are you suggesting that a certain caste of people has the right to be exposed to certain views and decide for other adults whether or not they have the right to see them?

So you believe a bureaucracy of "experts" should be given the power to decide truth? You would change your tune quickly if the bureaucracy of "experts" were right-leaning. Of course they do. Sometimes people who have been called kooks have later been vindicated and proven right. Not all opinions are equally valid, but the way to quash them is by bringing them into the light of discussion, not by suppression. We often don't know until years later which opinions are more valid so it is important to allow discussion. Even "experts" can be wrong. This is easily evidenced by the fact that two "experts" can completely disagree on an issue. Uninformed people making judgements for themselves on anything is what makes a society free and democratic.

Mark Zuckerberg admits censorship and vows to curb election donations https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/mark-zuckerberg-admits-censorship-and-vows-to-curb-election-donations/ar-AA1ptB2a Biden-Harris administration pressured Meta to censor Covid content, Zuckerberg tells House Committee https://theprint.in/world/biden-harris-administration-pressured-meta-to-censor-covid-content-zuckerberg-tells-house-committee/2239820/

Who does the allowing? I think it's far better to allow open discussion and let people make up their own minds.

And what exactly are you doing? As far as science goes, consensus opinions are not always truth. Doctors and scientists who disagree should be able to make their arguments, whether they end up being true or not. You don't arrive at truth by banning unpopular opinions.

Did they collude with Trump?

I wasn't fond of the Russia collusion people, either, but they have as much right to post online as anyone else. Seriously, though, if the government regulates the internet it just gives them the monopoly on misinformation. Even the biggest kooks can say something valuable once in a while. It's not smart to silence people.

Such as? What danger does he pose to society?

That is crazy. Whether you agree with an official narrative or not, people should be allowed to freely question it. No government entity should be trusted to arbitrate misinformation. In what way? What has gone wrong?