Comments by "Sasha S" (@sashas3362) on "Fox Business" channel.

They are trying to hold the people hostage to get what they want.
9
Maybe computers made entirely in the USA will finally become available. Then maybe we can finally trust our computers. I only hope this doesn't come at the cost of destroying the local ecosystem in the USA.
4
The earliest European immigrants who founded the original 13 colonies of the USA were not US citizens. Therefore their children could not be citizens? Nor the children of those children, ad infinitum. This argument that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to those born to foreigners/immigrants who weren't US citizens threatens to invalidate the claim to citizenship of all those born in the US since it's founding, does it not? It would appear only those descended from ancestors who had actually been naturalized could be considered citizens.
3
The fact that they are carrying the flag of the country they are leaving does NOT mean it is a hostile invasion. Ever heard of dual citizenship? Trump has dual citizenship in Scotland/UK and USA. Does that make Trump a foreign invader who has seized control of the USA? No, because Scotland/UK is not an enemy of the USA. Likewise, the nations these migrants are coming from are NOT enemy nations. It could be the people seeking asylum while waving the flag of their former homeland intend to come to the USA to work and make money so they can send money back home to help the friends and family they left behind improve the situation in their homeland so they can return to an improved homeland. Is that a crime?
2
@ieatchicharronforbreakfast1747 I noticed an error in that last sentence of my first post here which originally said "section 230 was originally written to shield social media platforms from liability lawsuits for hosting user posted content". I edited it to say it was written to shield social media platforms from liability lawsuits for both hosting AND censoring user posted content. I'm not sure of the accuracy of that but in practice it seems that is being interpreted as the intent of section 230. All in my opinion and/or if I understand correctly, of course.
2
@ieatchicharronforbreakfast1747 After a quick review of the relevant laws I was reminded it wasn't only child porn which section 230 allowed social media platforms to censor without incurring liability as publishers. It was intended to allow censorship of any illegal content or any content which might be obscene or harmful to a child ranging from copyright violations, defamatory slander, harrasment, porn, etc. When section 230 was originally passed it was a subsection of some larger law called the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA was title V of the Telecom Act of 199 (note: the non-discrimination rule in Title I of the Telecom Act of 1996 is the basis of "net neutrality", if I remember correctly). The CDA made all online pornography illegal until it was struck down. If I understand correctly, the only part of the CDA which remains is section 230 which remains as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. After the court struck down the censorship of all online pornography allowed by the CDA the only content which social media platforms and other online service providers which host 3rd party content can censor without incurring liability as a publisher for any 3rd party content appearing on their platform is illegal content such as defamatory/slanderous content, harassment, threats, child porn and and/or content which could be harmful to a child such as cyberbullying or encouraging suicide among others as specified by section 230. Censoring any other content falls outside the intent of section 230 and would incur liability as a publisher. IMO this would apply to any webpage which allows 3rd parties to post comments or other content. This could be a facebook page or the comments section of a youtube video. The only censorship which would be allowed without incurring liability as a publisher would be censoring illegal content. All other content must be allowed without any censorship. For some reason this was not clear to many people. Trump's EO seems to make this clear. It will be interesting to see how courts will react to this EO. Especially in light of the fact that the FCC's 2015 net neutrality laws have been overturned. It seems to me that net neutrality repeal only applies to ISP's (under the non-discrimination rule of title 1 of the Telecom Act of 1996). Other online service providers such as social media platforms are still obligated to maintain neutrality, except when they may otherwise become an accomplice to a crime, as outlined by section 230 or title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. If you ask me, even in such cases where social media platforms and other online service providers hosting 3rd party content may find themselves becoming host to criminal activity they should be limited to notifying the authorities and removing content only when ordered to do so by the authorities (preferably by a court). Otherwise, evidence could be deleted or content wrongly accused of being illegal could be censored. All IMO, of course.
2
$500 dollars? Who can live on $500? How does that put an end to poverty? It doesn't. That's not an imcome which meets an average person's needs. You can't do much with $500. You certainly can't do anything innovative with it such as start a business. People can make more money playing video games. To hell with their pathetic $500!
2
@manbeardogstar Oh. Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
2
@everready19373 You mean tens of thousands of deaths in the US? I heard over half of the US is expected to be infected. But at most only 7 or 8 million are expected to die (although it may be as few as tens of thousands of deaths since better more effective treatments have been discovered).
1
Joshua A. Kennedy, in response to your original post here, communists want an uprising of the working class against their morbidly wealthy employers in response to the gap between their wages and the cost of living. That's what inspires the evolution towards communism or a communist revolution. Tell me, how do welfare benefits for the working class help achieve the goals of communism?
1
@joshuaa.kennedy8837 That doesn't answer my question.
1
@joshuaa.kennedy8837 But as robots and ai make humans obsolete in the work force what other option than a universal basic income do we have? A basic universal income is inevitable. Or do you believe we should make robots and ai illegal to prevent the inevitable socialism? Is the reason we still don't have a robot which can clean our house, make our bed, and cook for us because gov has interferred in the natural course of technological evolution to ultimately prevent an evolution towards socialism or communism?
1
@joshuaa.kennedy8837 I suppose there IS an alternative to a UBI. That would be the cryptocurrencies one can earn on the alternatives to facebook and youtube which pay their users in crypto for simply using the service. The amount one earns on such platforms is based on popularity and the amount of work one does helping to maintain the platform such as by reporting users who are violating the law and/or terms of service or finding/reporting "bugs", etc. One can also earn money/crypto simply by playing video games. So, I see no need for the gov to issue a UBI.
1
@s.b.8258 Furthermore, most of those people are coming here to work not get on welfare. Welfare doesn't provide a decent quality of life. They will work if they want a decent quality of life.
1
The 14th Amendment guarantees that immigrants will be welcomed as friendly visitors rather than hostile invaders and the Constitution also guarantees certain UNALIENABLE rights which all mankind (not just citizens) are entitled to such as the right to travel unimpeded within and across borders and to become a resident in any region they may choose. How do you justify violating the constitution? You can't violate the constitution and call yourself a patriot. You call it an invasion yet there is no proof these immigrants intend to harm anyone. If you don't like the fact that they are able to get on welfare and receive free healthcare then perhaps instead of being angry with them for accepting what is made available to them you should be angry with those who make it available to them. The immigrants didn't write the rules. So why do you want to punish the immigrants for following the rules while you are trying to bend and break the rules? Maybe you should divert more time and energy towards rewriting the rules instead of worrying about people who are following the rules if you don't like the rules.
1
Look into section 230. Some people say section 230 means social media can't censor user posted content, that they must remain neutral, otherwise they become a publisher as opposed to a neutral platform and therefore become liable for any and all content (remaining) on their platform which they are considered to have published. Others say section 230 was written to allow social media platforms to censor user posted content without being held liable. I'm not sure what the truth is. It seems section 230 is an extension of the same telecommunications act which requires "net neutrality", which (if true) implies internet based social media and other online service providers cannot censor content. The reason this becomes confusing is because an exception to this neutral uncensored requirement is allowed and even encouraged by gov for things like child porn. The government allows for censorship to combat crime and terrorism. It's said section 230 was PASSED by gov to allow online service providers to censor for the purpose of combatting crime and terrorism but it seems section 230 is also construed to allow censorship for any reason the online service provider may desire. This is because section 230 was originally WRITTEN (as opposed to passed) with the intent to shield social media platforms from liability lawsuits for hosting or censoring user posted content which may be considered damaging to somebody (slanderous, false, misleading, etc).
1
@tinytroll161 Yes, exactly, because of how section 230 is interpreted. It's interpreted to mean they can censor (making them a "publisher" by acting as editor of the content they host) and yet cannot be held liable for what they "publish".
1
@ieatchicharronforbreakfast1747 Sure. No problem.
1
So are they going to shut down the schools and all businesses they deem non-essential when the numbers start to rise again as a result of the kids going back to school?
1
@manbeardogstar What do you mean chinese peasants are living like millionaires?
1
@adnel4142 That doesn't mean they are all wealthy. Most people living in a large metropolis are not millionaires unless the currency is so devalued that the average person is a millionaire in which case having millions doesn't make you wealthy.
1
Interesting because according to Weiss & Associates it should be the other way around.
1
I should point out that the legal definition of "citizen" is a "slave" because a citizen must pay federal taxes. Many people renounce their USA citizenship to avoid paying taxes. Federal citizenship replaced slavery following the civil war in the form of citizen taxpayers. Note the concept of a federal citizen did not exist prior to the passage of the 14th amendment following the Civil War. Overt slavery was replaced with covert slavery.
1
If the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to foreigners/immigrants then why do the clauses say foreigners should be treated as welcome visitors rather than hostile invaders and as having the same rights as natural born citizens?
1
@lbbork What statement? You mean the part where I basically quoted the 14th amendment? If you have a problem with the 14th amendment then you and those who share your POV should acknowledge what it says and work on repealing it instead of making yourself look uneducateable by trying to say it doesn't say or mean what it clearly and undeniably says and means.
1
@Major Gear After doing some research I discovered it turns out that although the USA had an open border policy up until the late 1800's, you couldn't vote or hold office in government unless you were a naturalised citizen. Naturalization was tightly controlled under the Constitution and limited to only free white men until the late 1800's (although, the first president of the USA under the Articles of Confederation was a free black man named John Hanson, revealing that the original spirit of the USA was not racist and that the USA was subject to a coup by racists). I should also point out that until the 14th amendment was passed, a person was not considered a citizen by birth unless their parents were naturalized citizens. So, if the 14th amendment is nullified that would mean many people living in the USA who are descended from early settlers may lose their citizenship since they or their ancestors would no longer be considered citizens by virtue of their birth on USA soil but instead will need to have also been naturalized. This would be true regardless of their race. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States
1
Reportedly PLANNING to singlehandedly overturn the 14th amendment? Fake news. Let me know when he signs the executive order.
1
Government can be funded by buying stocks etc the same as others instead of taking people's money through force or coercion.
1
Docademic is the solution to providing people with healthcare.
1