>>210429>Trump cucking on tech censorship. when asked about it he said "you fight by being good, you gotta be good"be a good boy and censored. so he admits they're bad but refuses to do anything about it. I love winning so much awoooo
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/12/exclusive-donald-trump-accuses-tech-giants-of-colluding-with-democrats/ >>210443What exactly could he do about it though?
>>210444remember that EO he promised? he won't do it because the USMCA (his new nafta deal) protects tech censorship. so he says one thing and does the exact opposite.
>>210445If an executive order (unconstitutionally) prevents big tech from censoring us, the next Democrat president will use this power to either ban us outright or prevent our platforms from dealing with shills and Shareblue. Every action has consequences.
>>210445That's not within his power. If he did it anyway, it'd get shot down in courts. This kind of stuff has to go through Congress.
Plus, that's a horrible legal precedent to set.
>>210446yet the national emergency circumventing the horrible budget bill he signed his??
>>210448maybe initially but last I heard the GOP has the supreme court and Trump's been filling the vacancies of the appellate courts with conservatives?
>>210448it's not within his power to protect the 1st amendment? pretty sure it is. remember Trump isn't worried about precedent because the democrats don't give a damn about it.
nope he wants tech censorship or he wouldn't have protected it in the USMCA.
Article 19.17
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/FTA/USMCA/Text/19_Digital_Trade.pdfI love how vague it is, anything that they find objectionable or harmful. I love letting facebook, twitter and google deciding what speech is objectionable or harmful.
it's exactly why Trump said "you just have to be good". he supports censorship, sure he says a lot of bullshit you want to year but actions speak louder than words
>>210450bullshit you want to hear
sorry about the mistake
>>210450You say that, but it seems a lot more complicated than that to me. It doesn't look like something that could do easily be patched through executive orders, and I'm not fond of the idea of future presidents digging into censorship laws.
Of course, he hasn't really done very much to oppose censorship in his presidency, other than complain, but it wasn't really a frontline issue for his campaign. He still has to figure out how to get that wall built.
>>210450>democrats don't give a damn about itYou'd regret it if you think that Democrats wouldn't jump at any precedent they could exploit to push their own agendas. Progressives love that shit.
Also, could you point out the part of the document you just posted that says the deal gives companies more freedom to censor than they already had?
>>210450>>210453The President (legally) can do very little about the 1st Amendment and that's a good thing. Unfortunately there have been exceptional monsters like Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR, who did restrict speech arbitrarily. The individual states, let alone corporate entities, are not bound by the Bill of Rights. A state could if it wishes impose a "censorship tax" on tech companies that have users in the area, though this might also get struck down in the courts.
Trump has struck a blow against censorship simply by his attacks on fake news and calling attention to how corrupt they are. Not as much as he could or should, of course, but it's still something. Too many people have been infected with the Progressive mantra, present for a hundred years, that the President can wave a magic wand to fix society's problems. This of course has dramatically aided (((socialist))) attempts to remake society. It's not going to work in our favor to the same degree, unless if you have a full-scale revolution, because the enemy has had plenty of time to entrench itself and it's nigh impossible to reverse all the problems in eight years, let alone four, after which there will be probably another stooge to reverse all our progress. Our best chance to have a president who truly represented our interests was Ron Paul '08, but even if the impossible happened he would be facing the same entanglements Trump has.
It's helpful to have a president to take the brunt of the media's attacks, but to accomplish anything worthwhile it's necessary to operate at the local, state, and online levels.
>>210457>Our best chance to have a president who truly represented our interests was Ron Paul '08Oh the things that could have been...
Thank You Awoo!
>>210459Ron Paul would have been cucked. The (((establishment/elites))) would have found a way to turn him into good goy puppet. That's the problem with outsiders/non-establishment types being winners/successful in politics. (((Those in charge))) would do anything to dig up dirt on you to blackmail you and turn you into a good little goy.
Anime Right News looks like hacked by Gang's followers.