Why isn't Big Tech afraid of a future Republican government regulating them to hell and back?

Yes, which is why an amendment to 230 makes alot more sense.

 

So why isn't Elizabeth Warren relevant in this area of big tech break up?

 

Yes, hopefully the two sides can come together and agree on a major measure, even if they both have different motivations for it. Republican's want a Section 230 change for an actual related reason. Biden wants to use it as a threat against the companies, pressuring them to agree to remove certain extremist content, (which for many people is content with which they disagree), but a change to Section 230 wouldn't actually make them remove more content, it would make them ALLOW more content, which is what Republicans want.

 

Why isn't Big Tech afraid of a future Republican government regulating them to hell and back?

They can afford to buy off the regulators?

 

Incorrect. Libertarians are for a complete free market (meaning no regulations at all). Republicans want as little government as possible, but they don't want complete non-regulations. They have no problem with regulations when it is necessary. You just have to prove that they are necessary.

 

Are they for sale?

 

Sure thing

 

The Republican train has been off the rails for a long, long time. I mean who thinks that Sarah Palin is anything but incoherent. A scattered brained bimbo, that became conservatidom’s darling. Not like George Bush was all the bright. Then along comes the Trump, clearly ignorant and unfit for the job, but, hey, he is our champion. Who looks at the Trump and thinks positively of it?

I don’t know what goes on inside the minds of those who follow the Trump, but much of it seems freaky weird to me.

 

Or is it more that when the ideology hits the pavement it falls apart? When it comes face to face with reality it finds itself coming up short? So it has to wiggle to pretend otherwise.

 

Just a wild guess.

 

you are 100 percent wrong... all the time... Trump is the best presidnet we've everhad, and you are a victim, willing or not, of the global elite.

 

It's never been to court and never will be.

 

Check. Facebook and Google have exploited Section 230 to create unstoppable monopolies.

 

Hard to know what in toto any of these pols want. Some of them may actually be concerned about the impact on markets. (One can always hope. )

Google searches are so manipulated I often search in incognito mode to stop results being filtered to what Google thinks I want. Using Bing is another work around.

 

Believe what you want to believe. I'm telling you what is reality. Republican's have never been fully against regulation. Just like liberals are for secure borders while leftists want it wide open.

 

Conservative ideology and especially the Libertarian variety is mostly unworkable in the real world. Ever wonder why there are no libertarian countries. Conservatives like to tell liberals that they live in fantasy land, but that is because their own ideology does not translate very well to the real world. Magical thinking is how my colleagues would call it.

Back in the day, when people were poor and dumb and didn’t know any better, they were ruled over by monarchs. And monarchs tended to have very small governments, because the monarch was really the only one who mattered. Just the bare minimum to remain in power. That is back in the days when everyone was a conservative. Then along came liberals and liberalism changed the world. It was seen that rather than the government just being an instrument to benefit the monarch, government could be used to benefit all the people. Sure enough, history clearly shows that those countries who adopted liberal ideologies are the most prosperous and free countries, whereas those countries who cling to monarchs and strongmen, their people live a substandard existence.

Many conservatives like to complain about public education. But without public education, we get a whole lot of illiteracy, a whole lot of ignorance.

 

What do you think was the problem with united gov't under Trump? Any examples?

 

Yeah, or her. Why not. The vast majority of that 70 million trump supporters would vote for her.

 

What do you think the impact on markets is?

 

Failure to do anything about health care reform (besides doing damage to the existing law for its own sake, which has harmed many Americans). Failure to mount any effective, coordinated national response (either on the economic side or the public health side) to a national public health emergency. Failure to rein in a lawless Executive, either in terms of his Unconstitutional misappropriation of funds, or in terms of the refusal of Executive branch officials to comply with the subpoena-power of Congress, or in terms of conducting a proper Impeachment trial, or in terms of a president who attempted to strong-arm the Fed reserve chairman. Failure to get critical Executive branch positions filled, leaving the government chronically understaffed (which led, alternately, to corrupt self-dealing in those agencies, or in their utterly incompetent administration, or both).

Trump was also utterly hapless in his conduct of foreign policy, and when Republicans had united gov't, they could have done much to mitigate the damage Trump was doing - damage which we haven't even seen the full scope of, yet.

That's what I can tell you off the top of my head. The GOP is complicit with Trump in all these failures, and judgment will be rendered jointly on them.

 

Then how do we know that the 1960 election was illegal?

 

What damage was done to the existing law?

Oh, so there was no COVID relief at any point and there was no CDC or NIAID guidelines? Interesting!

Oh, you mean like the Democrats who failed to convict Clinton even though he had an ACTUAL CRIME in his articles of impeachment! So are you also critical of them, or just the Republicans?

This sounds interesting. I haven't heard anything about this. Can you link to a relevant news story which talks about it? 'Executive branch positions trump failure' returns zero matching results on Google.

Oh, you mean like moving the embassy to Jerusalem?

 

Are you under the impression that this was a CONFIRMED story, and not just a Washington Post piece citing
"anonymous sources?" Your suggestion that Trump will trade secrets for favors remains totally unsupported.

 

Trump doesn't need money to get his base to vote for him.

 

Trump's Obamacare push during pandemic, COVID-19 is cruel - Business Insider

Six ways Trump has sabotaged the Affordable Care Act (brookings.edu)

What meager efforts there were, were not effective or coordinated. Trump shipped off masks to China -

Did the Trump Administration Send 18 Tons of PPE to China in Early 2020? (snopes.com)

Trump blamed health care workers for shortages of PPE -

Trump Again Accuses Health Care Workers Of Squandering Masks | HuffPost

And, of course, Trump willfully nixed the pandemic preparation plan that Obama prepared for future Admins. -

Trump admin ignored Obama-era NSC pandemic prep document: Politico - Business Insider

Trump administration cut pandemic early warning program in September | Coronavirus | The Guardian

Trump Team Killed Rule Designed To Protect Health Workers From Pandemic Like COVID-19 : NPR

For obvious reasons, violations of criminal statutes are not the only predicate for Impeachment. Moreover, not just any sort of crime is a justifiable basis for Impeachment. Obstruction of justice by committing perjury could count - but it depends on what the perjury was intended to cover up. It is ludicrous to suggest that lies to avoid exposure in a sex scandal suffice as grounds to reverse the results of an election and create a political vacuum at the seat of Executive power that any adversary could exploit. Impeachment needs to be reserved for genuine high crimes and misdemeanors. Posterity will regard the Clinton Impeachment as a pure power-grab by Republicans - requiring a level of Republican hypocrisy made all the more egregious, by many of those same lawmakers turning around 20 years later and giving a summary acquittal to a president of their party, who committed the kinds of acts that the Impeachment clause was written for! Conservatives' level of hypocrisy on this matter is breathtaking, so I don't expect you ever to cede the point. I only invite you to reflect on how you would have reacted, if a President Hillary Clinton blackmailed the Taiwanese gov't into declaring a phony investigation into Ted Cruz.

This is well-known, for those anyway who read analysis pieces in the elite opinion journals -

Half of Trump’s major federal agencies still only have one Senate-confirmed appointee - The Washington Post

How the Trump Administration Broke the State Department – Foreign Policy

Trump's cabinet agencies still understaffed despite flurry of Senate confirmations - Chicago Tribune

Trump Broke the Agencies That Were Supposed To Stop the Covid-19 Epidemic - POLITICO

The Trump Administration Is Corrupting the U.S. Government - The Atlantic

This was empty symbolism with adverse strategic ramifications. It essentially signaled that the United States would suborn its foreign policy to the interests of the Likud party in Israel; it effectively ended the US commitment to a two-state peace plan in the area of Palestine, which leaves the Palestinians (like the Kurds, an actual ally who Trump stabbed in the back) a stateless people. This strikes at the heart of the moral and diplomatic credibility of the United States in the region. But, eh, when you are just fine with the US being the errand-boy for the Likud party (a party which under Netanyahu's leadership is turning Israel into an Apartheid nation with Authoritarian tendencies), I guess it's all good!

Moving the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem is a Very Bad Idea | Military.com

Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem Is a Bad Idea for Everyone—Except Israeli Hard-Liners and Their American Friends | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

Of course, it can't be forgotten that the core of US support for Israel comes from the arch social-conservative Evangelical lobby - whose interest in Israel is anything but friendly.