Vic Mignogna

[Shaddy]

Also, political leaders don't control Twitter? That's why it's not a first amendment violation, Twitter can ban whoever it feels like, especially if it breaks the part of the TOS about harrassment, which Rekieta's "send me your insulting memes about this random person" could totally qualify for (and I suspect many other examples of his behavior that I haven't been paying very close attention to). They're privately owned, they can basically do whatever they feel like. If Rekieta doesn't feel it was justified, well, who cares what he thinks? Certainly not twitter.

This is the minimization that assholes always come up with, that they were "banned just for their opinion!!!1!!" like an opinion is somehow totally meaningless and actions don't follow belief. It's a fucking website, not the law. If you can still stand on a soapbox shouting about the end of the world, you have free speech. If some social media platform who was using you to make ad revenue decides that harassing people in the name of defending a serial abuser (or being a white supremacist, in most cases) isn't profitable or even safe, then you really have no power over their decisions.

[Cursed Lemon]

We're attempting to unpack a very, very messy suitcase talking about this.

Public and private structures are roughly the same when it comes to their power to affect the sociopolitical landscape. If Facebook, Google, Youtube, and Twitter all decided they enjoyed white nationalism, it'd be just as shitty a picture painted as if it was merely the government. True, those companies can't throw you in jail, but they absolutely can control public discourse and effectively erase ideas from the social aether in a way that the government could never do short of going full-Hitler. Ergo, the argument that free speech rests only in the public domain is farcical.

However.

The theory of maintaining the status quo and respecting the precepts of free speech both in the public and private sectors (to prevent the proverbial dam from breaking) rests on the assumption that neither side will violate those precepts if they are given power - that both sides will play fair. I think it's pretty damn well established at this point that right wingers have no interest in playing fair, one need only observe their political tactics over the past few decades as well as their disgusting social engineering efforts in the digital age to see that. The other side may have to dip their toes into the concept of fighting dirty, god knows the right wing has been swimming in the deep end for ages.

So, do you open that Pandora's box or not?

[Kokonoe]

Nice to see that jerk Nick banned again.

#KickVic

[Fionordequester]

I think it's pretty damn well established at this point that right wingers have no interest in playing fair, one need only observe their political tactics over the past few decades as well as their disgusting social engineering efforts in the digital age to see that.

I feel like it'd be more appropriate to say "right wing politicians" have no interest in playing fair. As far as the laypeople are concerned, there's probably a fair degree of people who'd be on your side, under the right circumstances.

Course, then again, I don't have faith in ANYONE in government, these days, so maybe that's a worthless statement...

[JulieYBM]

Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube and all of the other giant media outlets should be nationalized at best and heavily regulated like a public commodity at worse. Because these are now the new town square they should be held strictly to the word and spirit of the First Amendment. As things are now these massive social media sites are being used by the government to silence free speech and political opposition so as to protect their power as the establishment.

Think of it this way: these billionaires want to keep their money and websites. The establishment (politicians bought by billionaires and corporations and the un-elected members of the CIA/FBI/NSA/military) goes to them and says "Do what we want and we won't tax your asses or use the Anti-Trust Laws to break you up." It's the ultimate cock-sucking.

[Cursed Lemon]

As far as the laypeople are concerned, there's probably a fair degree of people who'd be on your side, under the right circumstances.

Roy Moore, a multiply-accused pedophile predator and otherwise peerless bigot, lost the Alabama governor election by one percentage point.

I have nothing in common with these people.

[Fionordequester]

Roy Moore, a multiply-accused pedophile predator and otherwise peerless bigot, lost the Alabama governor election by one percentage point.

I have nothing in common with these people.

I'm just thinking there's a crucial difference between "Alt-right", and just plain old "right wing", that's all. The extremists will ruin just about anything.

The J. Jonah Jamesons, and other hate-mongering punks, we run into on social media don't necessarily represent guys like, say, my Dad.

[kemuri07]

Dude, your dad might not be a frothing trump supporter...but if he voted for Trump, I tend to believe that he's complicit in every single thing this administration, as well as the "extremists," have done and will do.

Because he allows an environment for that happen.

[JulieYBM]

Dude, your dad might not be a frothing trump supporter...but if he voted for Trump, I tend to believe that he's complicit in every single thing this administration, as well as the "extremists," have done and will do.

Because he allows an environment for that happen.

T*ump voters were mostly desperate working-class folks who have been fucked by the the right-wing Democrats and Republicans post-LBJ and were especially burned Obama after he campaigned on being a progressive and then turned right around to be another war criminal and conservative just like the last then-seven presidents. Without further digging into the specific case of Fionordequester's dad it's a touch too premature to write him off as being a part of the White Nationalist-side of the T*ump campaign. T*ump ran as a populist-left candidate (even if a more experienced politics junkie could easily tell he was bullshitting) while Clinton ran as the pro-war, pro-empire, pro-Wall Street, and pro-right-wing candidate. It's kind of hard to blame the devastated working-class of the Rustbelt for voting for the guy who was at least pretending to be further left than the self-proclaimed lefty.

Mind you, again, T*ump turned out to be a liar and a war criminal who has no regard for the purpose of society and our Constitution just like nearly every PotUS ever...but...uh...hey...yeah, there's no bright side to this point.

[kemuri07]

Dude, your dad might not be a frothing trump supporter...but if he voted for Trump, I tend to believe that he's complicit in every single thing this administration, as well as the "extremists," have done and will do.

Because he allows an environment for that happen.

while Clinton ran as the pro-war, pro-empire, pro-Wall Street, and pro-right-wing candidate. It's kind of hard to blame the devastated working-class of the Rustbelt for voting for the guy who was at least pretending to be further left than the self-proclaimed lefty.

Mind you, again, T*ump turned out to be a liar and a war criminal who has no regard for the purpose of society and our Constitution just like nearly every PotUS ever...but...uh...hey...yeah, there's no bright side to this point.

I was going to take your post seriously...but what the fuck, man. That is some divorced from reality bullshitting. T I'm almost kind of impressed with it.

But I guess that's the narrative now. The people just didn't know that Trump was that bad. Nope. Nothing could have hinted that Trump was a veil, racist, fascist from the very beginning.



Shit, maybe some people here should just stick to anime.

[Fionordequester]

Look, my Dad's a cool dude; there's no need for another argument just on account of him.

There's no need for negativity when the next troll that comes will probably bring enough of that with them anyway.

[JulieYBM]

Dude, your dad might not be a frothing trump supporter...but if he voted for Trump, I tend to believe that he's complicit in every single thing this administration, as well as the "extremists," have done and will do.

Because he allows an environment for that happen.

while Clinton ran as the pro-war, pro-empire, pro-Wall Street, and pro-right-wing candidate. It's kind of hard to blame the devastated working-class of the Rustbelt for voting for the guy who was at least pretending to be further left than the self-proclaimed lefty.

Mind you, again, T*ump turned out to be a liar and a war criminal who has no regard for the purpose of society and our Constitution just like nearly every PotUS ever...but...uh...hey...yeah, there's no bright side to this point.

I was going to take your post seriously...but what the fuck, man. That is some divorced from reality bullshitting. T I'm almost kind of impressed with it.

But I guess that's the narrative now. The people just didn't know that Trump was that bad. Nope. Nothing could have hinted that Trump was a veil, racist, fascist from the very beginning.



Shit, maybe some people here should just stick to anime.

There's a reason why to run for president one needs sixty-five thousand individual donations to get onto the debate stages. It makes it easier for both major parties to rig the narrative for their wealthy donors' needs rather the needs of the actual people. I don't mean to be condescending when I say this but please be advised that it is very much possible for both candidates to be evil, racist pieces of shit.

We need a third, forth, fifth, sixth and however many more party candidate to be on the debate stage, not just two both taking money from the same corporations and donor class.

[Kataphrut]

I think it's hilarious watching Americans try to pull a "both sides" on their politics. Like, you guys had the most obvious binary right vs wrong, good vs evil, SMART vs STUPID choice to make in 2016 and you STILL fucked it up. Granted a lot of blame goes to the electoral college system and the disproportionate weighing of votes from rural areas, but even so. A lot of countries don't even have the luxury of being able to choose their racist dictator, they have to settle for what they're given.

Looking from the outside, it's laughable that a good percentage of otherwise smart, left-leaning American pundits and commentators were trying to weigh imaginary problems on the Democrat's side like Super PACs and Hillary's emails against the very tangible, blatantly obvious problems on the Republican side and apparently it worked well enough to split the party and land Trump in the White House. Good job guys, how's Puerto Rico looking from atop the high horse?

[Fionordequester]

Looking from the outside, it's laughable that a good percentage of otherwise smart, left-leaning American pundits and commentators were trying to weigh imaginary problems on the Democrat's side like Super PACs and Hillary's emails against the very tangible, blatantly obvious problems on the Republican side and apparently it worked well enough to split the party and land Trump in the White House. Good job guys, how's Puerto Rico looking from atop the high horse?

I mean, there was also Benghazi; an event that went down in many people's minds as direct evidence of Hillary's callousness and inability and/or unwillingness to keep people safe.

Though, I suppose it's always possible the truth was lost in that scenario as well.

[sintzu]

I think it's hilarious watching Americans try to pull a "both sides" on their politics. Like, you guys had the most obvious binary right vs wrong, good vs evil, SMART vs STUPID choice to make in 2016 and you STILL fucked it up.

To be fair, Clinton wasn't that much better which is why nearly 50% of eligible voters didn't vote. If Trump's a 5 then she's a 5.5 or 6 at best. From what I've seen, both parties won't fix any of the main problems facing the country such as health care, housing, college costs & the job market. Unless these issues improve, I think the number of people who vote will just go down with every election.

[Fionordequester]

To be fair, Clinton wasn't that much better which is why nearly 50% of eligible voters didn't vote. If Trump's a 5 then she's a 5.5 or 6 at best. From what I've seen, both parties won't fix any of the main problems facing the country such as health care, housing, college costs & the job market. Unless these issues improve, I think the number of people who vote will just go down with every election.

Yeah... Me personally, I didn't think highly of either of those two clowns. But then, I basically think of our entire U.S. Government as "Game of Thrones" being played out in real life.

So really, the only reason I voted Trump was because he was new enough to politics, and stupid enough, that he'd be much easier to impeach. A man who openly bragged about doing exactly what Vic Mignogna did would surely be much easier to see through than a woman who spent the better half of her life married to Bill Clinton himself; one who's been proven to be as twisted and corrupt as they came. That, and the Senate was controlled by Democrats at the time. Trump and the Senate would be at each other's throats, and defeat each other's worst impulses... Whereas Hillary and the Senate would be in full cooperation in every twisted scheme their hearts desired.

Least, that was my thinking. Not sure how well all that actually worked out in reality ...

[Kataphrut]

I think it's hilarious watching Americans try to pull a "both sides" on their politics. Like, you guys had the most obvious binary right vs wrong, good vs evil, SMART vs STUPID choice to make in 2016 and you STILL fucked it up.

To be fair, Clinton wasn't that much better which is why nearly 50% of eligible voters didn't vote. If Trump's a 5 then she's a 5.5 or 6 at best. From what I've seen, both parties won't fix any of the main problems facing the country such as health care, housing, college costs & the job market. Unless these issues improve, I think the number of people who vote will just go down with every election.

Again, people have convinced themselves that "Clinton wasn't much better", when from where I'm standing, yes she was. In a million different ways, she was better than Trump. Most of the problems you describe are the sort of thing that would only get better under successive Democrat terms (and a Democrat-controlled Congress/Senate, but having the definitely White House wouldn't hurt), and Democrat-nominated Supreme Court judges. These issues only stand to worsen under a Republican president, as indeed they have.

The big problem is not enough voters on the left think tactically. The Berners gained nothing by sitting out the 2016 election and in fact made things worse for everyone under a Trump government (particularly minorities who don't have the luxury of being able to "take a stand"). The ones whose votes had a chance of making a difference should have come out and taken advantage of the left faction uprising in the Democrats, because winning the election would have helped that growth in the long run. Rising tide raises all ships, you know.

I mean, there was also Benghazi; an event that went down in many people's minds as direct evidence of Hillary's callousness and inability and/or unwillingness to keep people safe.

Though, I suppose it's always possible the truth was lost in that scenario as well.

People only even knew about Benghazi because the Republicans and their propaganda network (ie Fox News) hammered Hillary relentlessly on it. They'd been planning for her candidacy for years, so they did everything in their power to turn people against her. And it worked. People were convinced she was bad enough that they wouldn't turn out to support her even when the alternative was a Cheeto-smeared racist game show host/property gangster raving about walling off Mexico.

In a situation like this, people demanding a true progressive government needed to understand what was happening and what was at stake if they sat the election out because they didn't get their "perfect" candidate. This only seems to be a problem on the left, that's why I'm saying it's hilarious- the right rallied almost entirely around Trump after he blitzed through all the "moderate" Republican candidates in the primaries. The left should have done the same instead of feeding into the Republican's decades-old propaganda strategy by demonising Hillary.

But then again, I'm only an Australian. What would I know about state leaders getting kicked through a revolving door and voters lapping it up while Rupert Murdoch laughs all the way to the bank?

[Fionordequester]

But then again, I'm only an Australian. What would I know about state leaders getting kicked through a revolving door and voters lapping it up while Rupert Murdoch laughs all the way to the bank?

Probably a lot more than we do, sadly. Here's to hoping that next election, we'll have finally figured out "what the hell happened to us?", and avoid making the same mistakes.

[Polyphase Avatron]

The forum is back, and I see it was just a hardware error. I was having paranoid thoughts that the ISWV crowd might have been DDOSing the site or something.

[gokaiblue]

I think it's hilarious watching Americans try to pull a "both sides" on their politics. Like, you guys had the most obvious binary right vs wrong, good vs evil, SMART vs STUPID choice to make in 2016 and you STILL fucked it up.

To be fair, Clinton wasn't that much better which is why nearly 50% of eligible voters didn't vote. If Trump's a 5 then she's a 5.5 or 6 at best. From what I've seen, both parties won't fix any of the main problems facing the country such as health care, housing, college costs & the job market. Unless these issues improve, I think the number of people who vote will just go down with every election.

Again, people have convinced themselves that "Clinton wasn't much better", when from where I'm standing, yes she was. In a million different ways, she was better than Trump. Most of the problems you describe are the sort of thing that would only get better under successive Democrat terms (and a Democrat-controlled Congress/Senate, but having the definitely White House wouldn't hurt), and Democrat-nominated Supreme Court judges. These issues only stand to worsen under a Republican president, as indeed they have.

The big problem is not enough voters on the left think tactically. The Berners gained nothing by sitting out the 2016 election and in fact made things worse for everyone under a Trump government (particularly minorities who don't have the luxury of being able to "take a stand"). The ones whose votes had a chance of making a difference should have come out and taken advantage of the left faction uprising in the Democrats, because winning the election would have helped that growth in the long run. Rising tide raises all ships, you know.

I mean, there was also Benghazi; an event that went down in many people's minds as direct evidence of Hillary's callousness and inability and/or unwillingness to keep people safe.

Though, I suppose it's always possible the truth was lost in that scenario as well.

People only even knew about Benghazi because the Republicans and their propaganda network (ie Fox News) hammered Hillary relentlessly on it. They'd been planning for her candidacy for years, so they did everything in their power to turn people against her. And it worked. People were convinced she was bad enough that they wouldn't turn out to support her even when the alternative was a Cheeto-smeared racist game show host/property gangster raving about walling off Mexico.

In a situation like this, people demanding a true progressive government needed to understand what was happening and what was at stake if they sat the election out because they didn't get their "perfect" candidate. This only seems to be a problem on the left, that's why I'm saying it's hilarious- the right rallied almost entirely around Trump after he blitzed through all the "moderate" Republican candidates in the primaries. The left should have done the same instead of feeding into the Republican's decades-old propaganda strategy by demonising Hillary.

But then again, I'm only an Australian. What would I know about state leaders getting kicked through a revolving door and voters lapping it up while Rupert Murdoch laughs all the way to the bank?

I'm sorry, but what is this thread about? Oh yeah, the Vic Mignogna scandal. Sorry for sounding kurt, but I'm honestly tired of real-life politics that have nothing to do with the situation being discussed here. Go to Twitter or something like that but not a Dragon Ball forum.