[ONGOING] Trump Supporters break into White House

Please Note: The TotalFreedom Forum has now been put into a read-only mode. Total Freedom has now closed down and will not be returning in any way, shape or form. It has been a pleasure to lead this community and I wish you all the best for your futures.

    Because America is racist. Non-white people are more likely to be killed by police. Archaic voting systems created centuries ago are kept in place for the purpose of vote discrimination. Republicans have anti-majoritarian laws working for them, which allows the minority to be overrepresented, and the majority to be underrepresented. Neither party is perfect but with my own viewpoints, I stand with the democratic party.

    @Madea#4700

    This is literally fake news,

    She didn't "accidentally crash her car. It was a full-on attempt to gain entry

    First paragraph on WikiPedia:
    "On October 3, 2013, in Washington, D.C., Miriam Carey, 34, a dental hygienist from Stamford, Connecticut, attempted to drive through a White House security checkpoint in her black Infiniti G37 coupe, accidentally hit a security rail, and was chased by the Secret Service to the United States Capitol where she was fatally shot by law enforcement officers. A young child, Carey's daughter, was found unharmed in the car after it was ultimately stopped"

    And I think it's quite a leap to compare a group of armed protestors to a single person whom A) could be a bomb threat B) HIT a secret service personnel and two police officers with her car.

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#4729 And I think it's quite a leap to compare a group of armed protestors to a single person whom A) could be a bomb threat B) HIT a secret service personnel and two police officers with her car.

    I get where you're coming from, but how did they know the intentions of the people rushing in? Though I'm not an expert on security, I would imagine that it would make it easier for a bomber to blend in among the crowd, which is why I feel is a much more major risk than if a single person went in.

    @Madea#4744 They didn't know the intentions of the "protestors". But if you were to open fire on an armed group, wouldn't you think they would fire back? I see the way this went matter of (a terrible one at that) de-escalation. Of course I wouldn't be able to predict how the NG, Secret Service or Police would react if it were BLM, as Joe Biden also noted, but I doubt they would have acted much differently, other than the simple factor of Trump berating and actually condemning the "protestors" in this case.

    I fully support the BLM movement in the US, but I think it's a vast oversimplification to say that this is merely a case of "White privilege", when you consider that they might merely want to de-escelate, so a violent shooting doesn't occur. Of course one of these protestors could definitely be carrying a bomb. So far, it looks like nobody were carrying any bombs, but two two suspected pipe bombs were hidden at the DNC and RNC and another possible pipe bomb was found at the Capitol complex. In addition, a vehicle nearby had a cooler with eleven Molotov cocktails.
    But again, I would certainly expect that the reason for the lack of a "defensive response" (i.e. gunfire) is due, in part, to de-escalation measures. Which is also why I think it's ludicrous to bring in a completely different situation with a totally different premise (which wasn't accidental, as you portrayed). Carey attempted to drive through a White House checkpoint; was stopped by a security rail, and was then chased by Secret Service agents and police (where she hit several before the end of the pursuit). No, of course the shooting was not merited at all, and the apparent fact that the secret service and police were so inapt that couldn't stop a mentally ill woman without executing her is a crime in itself. But again, the circumstances are vastly different from the storming, so to somehow equalize the two scenarios is inappropriate.

    idk, just my 2 cents.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zip…hHDIyVtrzt7Jmd4

    "Jim Bourg, a Reuters news pictures editor who was at the Capitol that day, tweeted that he heard at least three rioters say they “hoped to find Vice President Mike Pence and execute him by hanging him from a Capitol Hill tree as a traitor.” U.S. President Donald Trump had negatively tweeted about Pence just prior to the riots, saying he lacked the “courage” to overturn the election."

    What a sore bunch of losers lmao

    @Miwojedk#4760 Trump has been temporarily or permanently suspended on most major social media platforms. The far-right app "Parler" has also been removed from the Google Play Store and will probably be removed from Apple's App Store.

    I am not a person who supports Trump whatsoever, but I do believe this is a restriction of Freedom of Speech. I understand that these are private companies and they can do what they please, but to censor a sitting president is a very bold move.

    @Xen#4761 It would be wrong to say that it's a restriction on Freedom of Speech, because as you yourself mentioned, Freedom of Speech is more of a legal term in this context. But in regards to the principle (Freedom of Speech & Expression) I am in agreement with as well.

    Social platforms such as Twitter and Facebook act as the new public square, and should hence be regulated like public utilities, meaning that free speech protections should apply here as well. Obviously you then run in to the question as to where the distinction is for a "public square" vs. private social network, but I think it's a clear case that networks such as Twitter, Facebook, Google, and so on certainly shouldn't be regulated by Dorsey or Zuckerberg. Limiting free speech has always been a slippery slope, which is again, why I also subscribe to the notion of regulating them as mentioned. Alongside the legal implementation defamation, threats etc. would also still apply.
    There are so many examples of an arbitrary (ridiculous) standard set by these social media giants that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, one clear example is YouTube's guidelines - extremely vague to the benefit of the YouTube moderator.