Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "BREAKING NEWS: Josh Hawley And Rand Paul Battle Over Amendment To Ban TikTok From U.S." video.

I really like Rand Paul but sometimes he simply doesn't understand reality versus ideology. His principles are correct but he's applying the wrong ones to the debate. He actually doesn't understands certain national security issues. For example his rant against Saudi Arabia was pathetic. Saudi Arabi has been a strong ally. Now you look at their "royal family" ant it's involvement in terrorism this is to fail to understand how big the royal family is because I guess nobody ever thought about how many wives, sons, grandsons and so forth Ibn Saud had. And if a Saudi "journalist" with a US Green Card gets killed in Turkey is it really a national security issue for the USA? We're going to cut them out of the F35 program over that? Rand Paul gets most things right but I would not want him to be President for that reason. He gets it mostly right but then falls in love with all of his own principles. He gets too certain about things that he doesn't grasp well enough. His attacks of Fauci were golden. We need more like that. But Rand Paul's foreign policy is naive. Here he says it's about censorship with the entire "special pleading" against TikTok is that not only is it doing all the things we don't like tech companies to do in China but it is also owned by China and its entire operation is mirrored (the data) in China. If China wants to ask Google for data on "national security grounds" but it's stored in the USA then China must hack it or pressure them. If the data is stored in China they don't even have to ask, obviously. Because every eye and hand on the infrastructure knows they must comply with CCP orders. Period. I don't know how any one in DC can fail to understand this. There are no enforceable rights or duties the CCP promises to anyone or anything. Everyone knows they do what they want whereover they have the power to do so. If they have sovereign control over mainland China so you think there is any difference between TikTok data stores and the CCP equivalent of our NSA? No. There is none.
14
If TikTok is a threat to national security then every app that has the same access to Citizen's data is also a threat to national security. And I do believe TikTok is a threat to every nation at the hands of Communists and their absurd cultural Marxist "fellow travelers". The problem is that already under Bill Clinton DC was "rethinking" how to "govern the Internet" and, basically, the entire Bill of Rights (we can talk about Hillary's BS UN activism, not to mention CGI). By the time the Global War on Terror took shape everyone in DC went along with all of this hidden data aggregation so that "Intelligence Community" could keep track of "Terror Threats". But even before Obama ran for President I heard academics and their "actually" narratives where they began to spin these "root cause" stories that to first to "Intersectionalism" and then to "Capitalism". You're not a "Terrorist" if you insult Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or the Administrative State in general. Now you understand "Insurrection" theater to advance this neo-Manichean, neo-Gnostic (or Woke Manicheism) atheistic religion and it's binary "two class" Marxist worldview. With respect to TikTok itself, the reason they are so highly protected is because the DC "intelligence community" is not anticommunist. They're antifreedom, like all Communists are. They're essentially a Communist regime in the USA. TikTok is a special case, but not the only one to be dealt with. Google itself is equally dangerous and actually they're trying to displace TikTok with short videos and I'm sure that at some point they want to launch a special Android app for short videos just as they have with other niche AV players. And to operate in China you must comply with Chinese National Security Law. So, every corporation with a "web play" (or "apps") can have their collected data tapped by the CCP. Hawley is right but I assume he doesn't have the time to speak in the Senate to go deep in what I have laid out here.
1
@vonnano3561 People don't seem to know what precedent actually means. Focus first on "the case" before anyone starts to talk about supposedly problematic precedents. And the "precedent" as described by Rand Paul was that "Republicans and some Democrats" want to censor "free speech" when that is not the case at all. It's protecting national security by having "rules" about how private data is protected from hostile foreign governments. Rand Paul really twisted this one up. It would set a good precedent in accordance with the case presented by Hawley, not the straw man army used by Rand Paul. Rand Paul seems to have the same cartoonish view of Communism that Ayn Rand did. I don't know if that's mere coincidence but I doubt it. Libertarian Capitalists have no secret island to run to. Spiritually, yes. But with respect to national security, no. And Ayn Rand wrote that in the 1950s when even satellites were crude toys. This is probably the dumbest thing Rand Paul has ever done as a Senator.
1
@vonnano3561 "As you know, the law is the law," LOL. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. No idea at all. First, it's not at all about speech. Second, SCOTUS has ideals and realities. And you're wrong even in your explanation of the ideals, never mind the realities. Corporations have the same rights that we do. But foreign nationals and foreign governments have different protections than Citizens in accordance with the law. And saying something like "the law is the law" is the dumbest thing ever. Since you don't even understand even a little bit what the relevant doctrines are. Foreign corporations, especially those that are owned by hostile foreign governments, basically have no standing at all to seek redress in court because of something called "Clean hands doctrine". You don't even know in reality what we're discussing here.
1
@vonnano3561 "...the law is the law, it doesn't discriminate because it applies to all." This is the most laughable thing of all. Apparently you don't even know what discriminate means. What does judge mean? Now look up "discriminate". Illegal discrimination is a category of exceptions to the 'rules of discrimination' or judicial doctrines. Not to mention that you're entire rant is a nonstop array of false equivalency fallacies. "The argument that we can treat them differently in terms of their First Amendment right to speech because they are foreign entities will not prevail in the Supreme Court."
1
@vonnano3561 "When you allow the federal government to strip a company's First Amendment rights because they are deemed "national security" by the government, then what you really do is make the government more powerful." Um, guess what? National Security IS the most legitimate role of the Federal government. Surprise surprise surprise. And, no, this is not a First Amendment issue. They are already violating FISMA. And so is Dominion Voting and many others. I guess we have to classify you as a Constitutionalist anarchist but you don't really understand what you're ranting about. Even monarchists want a government for national security. As its only role. Have you ever taken even one kind of law class, like business law or Contract law or something like that? How about Real Estate or Tax law? Where in the world did you get such unmerited confidence in that gobbledygook spew?
1
@vonnano3561 "Next time, if Biden or Democrats are not happy with Elon Musk's twitter, they can also ban it by claiming it's posing a national security to the American people." National security is a domain of law and policy. Just uttering magic words is not a legal argument of any kind. Get it? The real "threat" is that the government, based on this policy as precedent, would then ban Twitter and Google and Facebook from operating in China since the national security threat stated in the argument is that China is storing and sharing all of the "private" data with their undivided Communist regime. IOW, like I said elsewhere, TikTok in China has the same role there that the NSA has in the USA. But they have no actual courts with rules in China. Xi's word can overrule anyone and anything until he's deposed by another Marxist monarch.
1
@vonnano3561 Banning TikTok for its egregious violations sets a precedent for a safer world. Period. It does not make government bigger. It actually makes it smaller because the alternative to cutting off unlawful fraud is "democratizing" is the way that the banks and corporate media in general have been coopted by US and foreign "big government" Communists. This trend itself can be dated all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, and his landmark Antitrust action, and then his insane Marxist cousin that "democratized" everything and created what people now refer to ignorantly as "the Deep State" whereas before it was "The Military Industrial Complex" all created by The New Deal and ancillary programs like Arsenal of Democracy and The Marshall Plan. Instead of outlawing espionage the "Intelligence Community" only cares about getting in on the action. That's big government for you. And installing the app itself is not at all a problem. It must be banned because those installing it don't even know what risks they're talking. And instead of having unintelligible gibberish like Google does, TikTok flat out lies about what is done with the data. So, informed consent is destroyed by allowing this. It's straight up fraud and every "certified app" from Apple and Google should be banned when they publish apps that violate our Citizen's rights. That's not big government. That's effective government and with respect to the status quo it is actually a shrinking of the Administrative or "regulatory" state that is basically 90% of what people call The Deep State. I'm so far out in front of Rand Paul I've been talking about this since before he even ran for his Senate seat. This really started happening when DC beuracrats interpreted Bush's "You're either with us or with the terrorists" and China claimed they were in on the Global War on Terror. And they were but they have always been on the wrong side. DC cultists cut them in, informally, as "national security partners". Did it not shock you when Generally Milley was proud to tell the story about how he went behind Trump's back to warn the CCP military that he would monitor and report any action against China ordered by Trump? This is what I'm talking about. Trump was probably the only one caught off guard by this. They think this is Social Justice. It's Big State to claim that Communists have "First Amendment Rights" to defraud US users to build massive databases on the movement of everyone, including State and Federal employees, their family members, router passwords cached in their "private" apps, and therefore everything they need to stealthily steal access to everything as each onion layer is peeled. These are the same people that have no problem with Hillary's illegal server but Trump is the problem because he kept his own Presidential documents in accordance with "the law of Presidents".
1