Born N Bled Red
New member
Wow! Spineless Sasse might have just grown a vertebrae.
The Republican Utopia
- Thread starter knapplc
- Start date
Wow! Spineless Sasse might have just grown a vertebrae.
RedDenver
New member
I think it's extremely easy to argue that their speech is not anything even remotely close to "providing bullets for an enemies gun".See, this is a hard one for me, because I 95% agree with you 100%. I think what you said is 100% true in the past. If you were a US citizen and choose to support Lenin or Saddam, or Milosevic, we'd consider you an idiot and move on. There is something different in todays world, however, where information and disinformation campaigns are a form of warfare. This is even more true when it comes to an elected official or news personality, like Tucker, who with their speech are providing Russians exactly what they need to wage and justify war in the digital age. If they were not, those clips would not be utilized in Russian propaganda they way they have been.
More than ever in history, information, disinformation, and our connectedness through social media and other avenues of communication is weaponized. In this line of thinking, it could very well be argued that the language used and clips provided by Tulsi, by Tucker, by Cawthorne, Trump, and their ilk is no different than providing bullets for an enemies gun.
This is a scary thought when it comes to freedom of speech, I agree, but... it is very hard to argue, that their words are not providing aid and comfort when used by Russian propogandists.
Propaganda has been around for a very long time and will be around for even longer. The other side of the coin if you allow the government to start labeling different types of speech is that you can get McCarthyism or warhawks being able silence advocates of peace as "aid and comfort" for an enemy.
Born N Bled Red
New member
To complete the analogy - propaganda machines and guns are both tools of warfare. Soundbites (in support of the Enemy) and bullets are the items necessary for them to work.
In the past, there was very small chance a soundbite spoken in the United States would be used by a foreign enemy to support their efforts against ourselves or our allies. War has changed. Tulsi Gabbard insisting Putin was right or Tucker saying he hoped Putin wins and Russian propaganda machines making those clips go viral could be even more deadly than a bullet if that language was utilized as a means to justify war.
Let's say hypothetically, the United States was thinking about going to war. In the US, Congress must declare war. Congress is split 50-50 on shaky grounds for war. Then the potential enemy's leading propogandist and several elected officials come out and say they support the US's position and that there is truth to the intelligence that was being used to make the case for war. This propaganda was circulated among congress, and convinced 10% of congressmen to switch and vote for war and war is declared. Another guy gave the United States 100 Bullets.
Who committed treason, the guy who gave the US 100 bullets to use against his country or the guy who's soundbite (which he produced knowing it would be used by US propogandists) ultimately led to the declaration of war?
What do you think would be responsible for more deaths. 100 bullets given to the enemy, or the ten 10 second sound bites that led to war being declared in the first place?
Last edited by a moderator:
More transparency from our government officials is almost always better than less
BigRedBuster
Active member
[No message]
BigRedBuster
Active member
[No message]
BigRedBuster
Active member
[No message]
BigRedBuster
Active member
[No message]
BigRedBuster
Active member
So....you're saying she's on par educationally to the Harvard Law grad she's trying to grill.
She’s isn’t on par educationally speaking in regards to law. But that’s not the standard for the job she is doing. This applies to many others on the committee too, both D and R’s
BigRedBuster
Active member
Yep...but, like I said. These hearings so often show how unqualified members of congress are for their jobs. It's pretty pathetic really.
BigRedBuster
Active member
It just amazes me how much these people think they are above the law. They think they can just do whatever they want and can completely ignore court orders. Meanwhile, like her or not, at least Hillary showed up and answered questions for 11 hours
I agree that Supreme Court hearings are a joke. Just look at the two previous ones. They were abominations. I mean, one person actually called himself Spartacus, another 80 yr old falsely accused a nominee of serial rape as a last ditch effort to derail the process. Cruz looked silly during this process.