- 5,051
- Netherlands
PragerU
- Thread starter GranTurNismo
- 83 comments
- 5,169 views
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Ever since March of this year, Warren's campaign and every major news outlet in the US has reported extensively on Warren's plan to investigate, break-up and regulate high tech giants such as Facebook, Google and Amazon. She is doing this on the basis of existing antitrust (monopoly) legislation. The situation is currently that of monopoly. But monopolies are not necessarily bad and in fact can be good, even highly desirable. This means that Facebook and Google will not be actually dissolved or broken in bits or receive competition from small companies or brick and mortar. No. They will be regulated. They will stay on as valuable and useful monopolies, but will become statutory, legal monopolies. "Platform utilities", as
Warren says. The bottom line is that Facebook and Google, by platforming liars, fakers and propagandists like Russia, Steve Bannon, Breitbart and Trump, enabled and allowed the wrong person, a dangerous loose cannon, to be elected President in 2016. That cannot be allowed to happen again.
https://www.investopedia.com/how-will-elizabeth-warren-break-up-big-tech-4772263
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/legalmonopoly.asp
Last edited:
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
As I recall, those are the main sources I used. There was another one I forget but it was similar to this:
Also this:
And this:
And this:
Last edited:
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Well, you are a hard man to make happy, and I'm sorry I was unable to do it even though I tried my best.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I will reiterate that claim: Warren wants to regulate tech monopolies. They are already monopolies. They have caused harm and need more regulation. The regulation will not come from within, but from without - from government. Therefore, Warren wants government regulated monopolies. And parts of them will be split off.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Also incorrect. Warren wants to split up these supposed monopolies. Claiming she wants government regulated monopolies is still very misleading and still inaccurate. She wants more competition. Which Everybody should agree with.
Rallywagon posted a source with the accurate proposition:
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
If you seriously feel I'm deliberately misleading and inaccurate, you can report me.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Dude, I dont think you are doing it on purpose and I very much respect your opinion. I have no reason to report you. Perhaps my comments seem very harsh, but I didnt mean it that way.
I just hope you now realise you were mislead concerning Warren. I really think you listened or read something from a righwing "news" source like Fox, PragerU or breitbart and assumed they were telling facts.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Maybe you could try googling Fox, PU etc for 'Warren wants government regulated monopolies'. I tried yesterday but couldn't find it. My ideas are my own. I try to go the third way of social liberalism and economic conservatism.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
My main view on Warren is that she is the leading candidate in the Democratic field, and by an increasing margin.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Yes ok, but previously you thought she wants government regulated Tech monopolies. Which sounds far left communist, which was inaccurate potrayal. If she actually said that, I would have been advocating not to vote for her.
However she did not say she wants government regulated monopolies, but actually wants to stand up for the 99%. A message that should not be defined by partisan politics.
edit: To go back on topic, I would say it is a good example how something like PragerU misleads conservatives by twisting the truth and making extremely misleading conclusions.
Last edited:
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Yeah, I also kinda agree with you that the "gov backed monopoly" bit is probably a bit of hyperbole. I think people want to misconstrue the term "platform utility" as to mean a physical utility not unlike power companies. But, that's not what I wa spicking up. It sure doesnt sound like Warren wants the gov to make it so only facebook gets to be the only social media platform, but rather, that they can only be the platform. They cant be the advertiser and the product manufacturer and the marketplace as well. Or Amazon can be the marketplace, but they cant be the manufacturer or seller within their own platform. And also Amazon cant use its money and influence to buy up or squash competitors unethically.
To me, it does in fact sound much more positive for the ethos of a more free and competitive market amd economy. Especially for the small business that has to try and use these marketplaces and advertising platforms.
- 3,709
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
PragerU at it again justifying their racist “some cultures are better than others” ideology with “facts and data”. Their Instagram account is a gold mine for stuff like this.
- 3,709
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
Would you care to explain that?
The statement “some cultures are better than others” at its heart is very vague and not much can be inferred by it. I could very well agree with your explanation, or it could be racist or stereotypical.
The right has sort of adopted the phrase, and they mean it as “White cultures are generally more advanced and wealthy than nonwhite ones, therefore we should prioritize white immigrants over POC ones”. I believe Paul Joseph Watson has a video that perfectly explains this sentiment.
- 11,626
- Intercourse, PA
- Carbonox
For one, there was a practice called sati in parts of India that involved burning widows alive on funeral pyres along with their husbands - I really doubt I need to elaborate further on why that barbarianism was right to be purged by colonists.
As luck would have it, my research indicates that it was born out of good old honor culture, a blight on any society wishing to move forward. Some of the things people do to protect their arbitrary honor or masculinity are mindblowingly insane, and yet that's exactly what the surrounding communities expect out of them. In the above example, cultural superstition declared that surviving widows brought bad luck.
In addition, while any CCP-instigated cultural change might be considered arbitrary in comparison to age-old cultures that took a much longer time to form, the Chinese sure are currently trying their darndest to sow distrust with the endless dishonesty that goes on within their borders, all occurring under the ruling class' blessing. The fault doesn't exactly belong to the civilian population, not solely at least, but in the long run the cheating, party-worshipping culture is bound to create much crappier people than the Western system.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Forget their claims and look at the source, it's pragerU nothing they say can be claimed as truth or close to it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies
When their source is Center of Immigration studies but can't actually provide the actual report you know where this is going.
- 3,709
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
Yep. It's just propaganda at its finest.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Suttee was elective and was never widespread - cultural teachings by the time of those fantastic colonists (who killed millions more Indians in the 19th and 20th century than suttee ever did) taught against the act.
in the twentieth century there were 650 known cases (30 after 1943) amongst 400,000,000 people while Churchill's starvation of the "colony" killed around 3,000,000. Another thumping win for colonialism, I'm fairly snorting with pride.
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,626
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Also, as far as any relevance to this thread is concerned... according to the map above, those :censored:hole-born, barbarian, crappier Indian immigrants claimed less benefits than those from anywhere else in the world so maybe PragerU's suggesting they should be the first to be let through the wall?
Looks like those like Watson with an ideological preference for white immigrants are going to have to try harder if they're going to justify admitting Europeans rather than them.
Last edited:
- 13,831
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I'd think you'd find it hard to reason that some cultures are objectively superior to others, but I wouldn't argue with the idea that I'd certainly prefer living in some cultures than others.
That image is so weird. 30% of US born immigrants to the US are on welfare? How are they immigrants if they were born in the US? I smell lies, damned lies and statistics going on with that data.
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,131
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,626
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I guess they count second generation immigrants born to immigrant parents in the US as "living in an immigrant household". More code for "darkies", perhaps.
- 11,626
- Intercourse, PA
- Carbonox
I'm sorry if the post gave you the impression that I was swooning over colonialism, however the actual point was that the practice was so vile that colonists were actually in the right for once when abolishing it.
As a side note, it was only officially outlawed as late as 1988, as a response to some crappy backwoods communities still continuing the tradition.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The problem with you painting ritual suicide in parts of India as an illustration that their culture is objectively worse (to pinch @Imari's words on the topic) is that ritual suicide occurs in all sorts of places. The deaths in a single US mass suicide (religiously driven) in 1997 suggest that we can find the phenomenon anywhere and that it doesn't really shine a wider light on culture outside the smallest groups. Some of those US suicides had been voluntarily castrated too. Grim.
Similar threads
- Poll
