All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Mister Mets]

Student loans are typically held by one of two groups. Either a private lender - which has become predatory (at least in the student loan category) or the federal government itself. In the first case, if those get wiped, we ARE taking money from the people who lied to students. In the second case, we are basically giving someone in the middle class a permanent tax break which they will use to pump money into the economy. I don't have much of a problem with either scenario despite not being one of the people who benefits directly from the loan forgiveness.

I have no problem whatsoever cancelling student loans, or any kinds of loans, if the lender lied. This would need to be established.

I'd also add that the student loans have easily broken even based on interest payments alone. I've personally seen that with at least a dozen loans (shouldn't have, but Covid).

It's not like these people took a car or anything physical, depriving someone else of material.

I'm not sure that's a relevant approach to figuring out if people used loans correctly enough for those to be repaid.

In some sense, it's worse that they didn't get anything concrete out of it.

The loans also meant there was less pressure for colleges to reduce costs, or provide more advantages.

Really??

So the folks who went to work for companies like Eron run by crooks that cost them their jobs are not responsible people?

The school employees that lost their jobs because of MONEY MISMANGEMENT or STATE FUNDING being CUT or STATE TEST SCORES were too low are not responsible people?

The folks in Flint and Jacksonville with bad water because of YOUR PARTY causing them to spend more money to get clean water are not responsible people?

Folks who can't find jobs because of YOUR PARTY standing in the way as they are with fixing the border, funding Ukraine (75% of that aid actually goes to US businesses with military contracts) and WITCH HUNTS on Biden or misinformation about a stolen election.




Then when GOP stop bailing out banks who have mismanage money then we can stop dismissing student debt.



Funny I paid back my student loans and have a retirement fund and those other tools. None of that is linked to paying student loans.

The majority of professional development is paid by the company. Same with most tools unless you are self business.




The government doesn't have to say anything. You fix that issue by telling kids to pick schools that they can afford and not base it on what the football team does.

Along with telling certain companies like the trash owned by Elon Musk to stop taking issues with the existence to HBCUs. Too much of this only looking at what school you are from for a job. With so many NOT wanting black folks who don't play a sport at PWI-where do folks think those kids will go?

Funny guys like Musk don't have issues with community and D2-NAIA schools but only HBCUs.

Note the use of qualifiers like "on average."

"I do think that on average, the average person who has paid off their debts is more responsible than the average person who has not. We should generally encourage people to pay off their debts as quickly as is prudent." does allow for the possibility that a good chunk of the people who failed to pay their debts were responsible.

You left out sections on my post where I further made this clear, like what I said earlier.

"Obviously, for some people the reason they're able to pay their student debt faster isn't because they worked harder, or because they made wise decisions (IE- picking a STEM major rather than something that doesn't correlate to high income.) It may be because they had relatives who worked hard (or wealthy relatives who didn't work hard) and sometimes there will be some kind of lucky break. Likewise, some people who aren't able to pay their debt could have tried hard, but had bad luck (entered the job market at the wrong time, needed to take care of other expenses a prudent man would consider worthwhile, etc.)"

So there's no way you're unaware of the context. You responded to a strawman version of the post, and that's dishonest.

If a person pays back their student loans, they're not spending the money on other things. If you were able to pay off your debts and make investments for later, one implication is that if you can do it, others should be expected to do it as well.

The reality is that people have different salaries and outcomes. You might have been able to afford to pay off your student loans and simultaneously make some investments in the future, while others might not have the option.

I have no problem with the idea of making degrees less of a requirement for jobs. That's a policy solution that doesn't require additional spending.

[Mister Mets]

Dishonesty solves nothing and wastes everyone’s time.

To clarify — claiming that no one met your standard served your agenda (deflection).

———

“A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption. Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

The loaded question was in the idea that if someone thinks a Governor is so extreme that a moderate member of their party should not consider voting for them for President over a typical member of the other party, the commentator should be able to mention three policies, actions or statements that cross the line. What's the controversial assumption?

You seem to think it's a loaded question because of the possibility I won't be persuaded, but that's normal in any discussion on topics where people disagree. Adults should recognize that people will sometimes look at the same information, and not come to the same conclusion.

This is why it useless to “debate” many topics with Republicans — there is no consistency to the party outside of greed, bigotry and their inherent threat to democracy.



Some even think it’s “weird” to point out out that they rarely address the obvious racism and bigotry within their ranks — obviously it is such a serious problem that they’d rather not talk about it.

That's not quite the disagreement. Let's take a look at what I said was weird.

It's not a loaded question. Anyone can give the reasons that persuaded them, or explain a different criteria for why DeSantis meets a particularly low standard. It's possible those reasons aren't going to persuade me, but adults should realize that people with the same information can come to different conclusions.

I've been telling you for years that if you'd like my opinions on something, you can ask me a non-loaded question about it. Otherwise, it seems weird to criticize a lack of response.

There's something quite sketchy in the argument where you say something insulting and untrue about me, and then when I respond on that point, you complain that I didn't talk about something else.

As I said, if you want me to call me out for not talking about something, you could ask me a non-loaded question (one that does not contain a controversial assumption; I don't expect that you will be in complete agreement with whatever you say) about it so that I know what you think is so important that you're going to criticize me for not answering it.

Last year, Mets handwaved a whole bunch when we pointed out Michael Knowles saying 'transgenderism must be eradicated' at CPAC Now we have it being repeated by another Republican extremist he defends in Chaya Raichik, by state legislators, and over three hundred anti-LGBTQ bills filed by Republicans across the country.

It's a slippery slope, all right.

Here's what I said about it at the time.

The CPAC guy knows what he's doing, and baited a particular reaction.

Social conservatives will tend to think trans people are wrong, and people who follow the issue should recognize that this is a big part of the argument. A call to eradicate transgenderism is for many on the right the equivalent of a call to eradicate anorexia. It doesn't mean they want anorexics to die, and any such claim should be recognized as being highly misleading. It's not as if CPAC speakers secretly believe that millions of people would be better off with hormone therapy and sex change operations, even if you believe that would make their quality of life better.

I don't think I said anything untrue, let alone worth bringing up a year later as an example of something so outrageously wrong that it must be called out.

What is said at CPAC typically becomes Republican goals for the party at large sooner or later.

This is in the context of someone who thinks a stage looks like an odal, and therefore there is a Nazi cabal.

As has been pointed out to him, repeatedly. And ignored in favor of semantics, or a discussion about how a t-shirt worn by a democrat is a MUCH more dangerous indicator or somethingsomethingleftismsomething…

The view here is that a stage looking like an odal is obviously proof that Republicans are Nazis, but a prominent member of the Democratic party (#5 in House Leadership at the time, Vice- Chairman of the DNC) does not in any way represent the Democratic party. This does not seem even-handed.

Even if we're comparing the ugly things said by Jack Posobiec (someone I haven't written about before in any post on CBR) to Keith Ellison, Ellison was a bigger figure, unanimously voted into DNC leadership.

[Mister Mets]

No, I don’t think there’s a ‘secret cabal at CPAC’.

I think your party openly embraces and espouses Nazism for profit and power, because they have literally nothing else to offer America but hate, greed, and hypocrisy.

I, and others, have repeatedly and openly stated (and provided links to back up our statements) over the years that the GOP is openly catering to the American Nazis. We don’t play rhetorical games to hide our motives or pretend to be centrist. Your party is absolutely working to bring down everything America stands for, and they’ve been doing it for so long that I genuinely believe it is their entire goal, at this point. Not because your party BELIEVES in Nazism, mind you. I don’t think the GOP genuinely believes in ANYTHING other than their right to rule and have all the money. But because they see profit to be made in hatred and divisiveness, and as long as THEY get all the money, who cares if the Nazis kill a few homos and colored? The GOP and it’s adherents won’t suffer under American Nazis!

Their platform - particularly the GOP planks regarding queer folx, regarding immigration, regarding ‘family values’, regarding reproductive rights, regarding domestic terrorism, regarding people of color, regarding authoritarianism, regarding religious supremacy, regarding wealth distribution, regarding international relations, and SO ON - is full of idealogical similarities to the proto-Nazi party in Germany.

Their rhetoric and even the specific forms and formats of their propaganda, mirrors the Nazi party.

Their symbolism is that of the Nazi party.

CPAC knew what they were doing when they made their stage an exact replica of an SS pin. They knew this because there is absolutely no excuse - other than incompetence - to NOT know it. There are COUNTLESS places to find out ‘what are Nazi symbols and how can I avoid using them?’ They CHOSE to make their stage look like that as a signal to the American Nazi that the GOP has their back against the commies, queers, darkies, uppity women and atheists. And they then proved it by their rhetoric and the things they publicly support.

And you have, over the years, repeatedly played the very semantic games you’re being called out for, now. You have intimated that those of us seeing worrying signs of rising Nazi ideology in the GOP are the ‘extremists’.

You belittled.

You mocked.

You attempted to delegitimize us or distract from our points with rhetorical games.

Meanwhile, your party has kept working hard at lying, cheating, stealing and hating as it supports dictators and genocidal madmen around the world, while also supporting concentration camps and razor wire for immigrant kids, torture camps for queer kids, and violence against queer folx, women, protesters, and people of color here in America. Your party defends treason. Your party is running a traitor, rapist, pedophile and con man for president against a conservative woman of color who had to change her name to be accepted by the white supremacists in your party, AND THE TRAITOR RAPIST PEDOPHILE CONMAN is winning!

But it’s unreasonable and extremist to point out that your party is primarily populated and supported by a bunch of misogynistic racists wearing MAGA hats and waving the Nazi and Confederate flags at Trump’s Nuremberg Rallies…

OK…

And while your party and its leaders and its voting base do all of this before our eyes, out in the open, where we can discuss what we see happening because it’s not being hidden at all, where are you?

Defending them and ignoring their excesses, and playing games.

So, yes.

I believe that the GOP protects, encourages, and supports a significant number of people who support Confederate and Nazi idealism specifically, and the cause of white ‘christian’ nationalism, generally. I believe that the GOP supports and encourages these ideologies, because doing so has kept them wealthy and in power for so long that they see no reason to change. Many of them in positions of leadership. I believe that the GOP willingly got into bed with the criminally rich, the religious extremist, and the white nationalist/supremacist movements and has helped them achieve their goals for decades, until people finally have started fighting back.

And I believe you know it, too. Which is why you fight SO HARD to claim that a t-shirt proves that Democrats hate America, but conservatives having a party on an SS symbol as they talk about their plans to whiten America isn’t anything to worry about.

I think that, for someone who banks on portraying himself as ‘reasonable’, you’ve shown a disturbing willingness over the years to turn a blind eye and play rhetorical games like ‘whatabout?’ and ‘just asking questions!’ and ‘well let’s be specific here…’ because it’s YOUR party in power, and you have said that it’s ‘reasonable’ for a political party to say and do certain things if they believe it will help them stay in power, or if they ‘believe’ they are ‘helping’ America.

It’s a big part of why I walked away from this forum for a number of years, and why I have mostly not bothered to respond to you since coming back. But since you’re condescending to me, here, I felt it warranted a response.

If you're going to call me out for something I've said before, quote me.

It seems that I'm often called out for being on the wrong side, as opposed to the specifics of what I've said.

Sometimes it's an argument with a strawman.

I certainly disagree with your views here, and think people who disagree with you should call you out.

It is curious to me to see what people call me out for, but won't call out their own side for.

I imagine my response to what you say is a bit similar to your response if some right-winger talks about how communists have taken over the Democratic party, and the progressive establishment. And at that point the discussion is going to be about that goalpost, rather than any legitimate criticisms of the left.

The Nazi comparison is category creep, and fails to take into account what made the Nazis so terrible. It's not opposition to immigration or trans people.

I don't think you expect everyone on your side to spend any time researching "What are communist symbols and how do I avoid them?" and would be surprised at an expectation.

The freakouts on the left over ok symbols (like the time they thought a Kavanaugh witness flashed a white power sign) lead the right to not take these claims seriously.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post3884655

[aja_christopher]

You seem to think it's a loaded question because of the possibility I won't be persuaded, but that's normal in any discussion on topics where people disagree. Adults should recognize that people will sometimes look at the same information, and come to the same conclusion.

It has nothing to do with what anyone “thinks” — the fact is that you asked a loaded question and have repeatedly lied and tried to accuse others of “insulting” you simply for pointing out the truth.

It’s clear that you are deflecting because you don’t want to discuss the Nazis and white supremacists within the Republican Party and would rather focus blame and attention elsewhere.

You wont even address Nazis at the CPAC — what’s “insulting” is thinking people can’t see through your misleading rhetoric which attempts to give cover and support to the white nationalist policies of the Republican Party.

[zinderel]

If you're going to call me out for something I've said before, quote me.

It seems that I'm often called out for being on the wrong side, as opposed to the specifics of what I've said.

Sometimes it's an argument with a strawman.

I certainly disagree with your views here, and think people who disagree with you should call you out.

It is curious to me to see what people call me out for, but won't call out their own side for.

I imagine my response to what you say is a bit similar to your response if some right-winger talks about how communists have taken over the Democratic party, and the progressive establishment. And at that point the discussion is going to be about that goalpost, rather than any legitimate criticisms of the left.

The Nazi comparison is category creep, and fails to take into account what made the Nazis so terrible. It's not opposition to immigration or trans people.

I don't think you expect everyone on your side to spend any time researching "What are communist symbols and how do I avoid them?" and would be surprised at an expectation.

The freakouts on the left over ok symbols (like the time they thought a Kavanaugh witness flashed a white power sign) lead the right to not take these claims seriously.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post3884655

Lol.

Brilliant. Fantastic.

The reason that CPAC used a symbol associated with white supremacy, and why CPAC openly embraced Nazis this year, and why the GOP constantly uses blatant Nazi propaganda and symbols to signal their support to their base isn’t because the GOP is demonstrably more and more like the Nazis they love virtue signalling to. No, the reason we THINK they’re embracing Nazism is…

Because us libruls are too whiney for the right to take seriously when we point out Nazi symbols.

So, the blatant and unmistakeable Nazification of the right is the fault of the left.

Wow, Mets.

Wow.

[CaptainEurope]

If you're going to call me out for something I've said before, quote me.

It seems that I'm often called out for being on the wrong side, as opposed to the specifics of what I've said.

Sometimes it's an argument with a strawman.

I certainly disagree with your views here, and think people who disagree with you should call you out.

It is curious to me to see what people call me out for, but won't call out their own side for.

I imagine my response to what you say is a bit similar to your response if some right-winger talks about how communists have taken over the Democratic party, and the progressive establishment. And at that point the discussion is going to be about that goalpost, rather than any legitimate criticisms of the left.

The Nazi comparison is category creep, and fails to take into account what made the Nazis so terrible. It's not opposition to immigration or trans people.

I don't think you expect everyone on your side to spend any time researching "What are communist symbols and how do I avoid them?" and would be surprised at an expectation.

The freakouts on the left over ok symbols (like the time they thought a Kavanaugh witness flashed a white power sign) lead the right to not take these claims seriously.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post3884655

Please stop walking down that path. Please.

[aja_christopher]

[SquirrelMan]

What if Simon and Kirby had created a comic about not antagonizing Hitler and encouraging peace negotiations instead?

[Dalak]

Trump and the Republicans have been coordinating with the Russians since before his election.

You'd think this would be a bigger story than much of the press is treating it.

Exactly.

This is pretty serious stuff.

It would if Biden and Democrats were in bed with Russia. Because it's Trump whom the media have made no secret about wanting back in the Oval Office....crickets.

Trump & Russia is old news, it doesn't get people clicking & watching and getting them that Ad revenue. The profitization of news has played a huge roll in the the conservative effort to destroy Democracy.

Darn that ‘secret’ cabal of Nazis and Nazi sympathizers at CPAC…but I’m sure we’re all misreading things, and it’s not as bad as it looks…

Despite it requiring someone to ignore literal years of evidence posted and very recent posts showing National Socialists openly at CPAC using slurs and espousing Nazi ideas, that's exactly what we were just told.

Be sure to check out the interview between Taylor Lorenz and Chaya Raichik making the rounds.

She does not acquit herself well.

https://twitter.com/AriDrennen/statu...40106651713991

Posts like this have to be ignored if people defending her have any hope of keeping up their facade of moderation.

I would like to remind everyone that US is not supposed to help Ukraine out of some goodwill or a feeling of charity. US and UK gave Ukraine security assurances when they gave up their nuclear weapons.
I would of course argue that the rest of us, especially European countries, have a moral obligation to help as much as we can and that helping them is in our own best interests, but for US and UK, there is also that legal obligation. Unless, of course, we accept that international agreements have no value, no matter who signs them. (We already know they have no value for Terrorist russia.)

All this does in the long term is ensure that countries will be more interested in procuring nuclear weapons, as they seem to be the only guarantee of security for their citizens.

Didn't know that, and I really wish Biden would harp on that more.

Nukes are only going to get easier and easier to make, or even worse weapons. Stopping Russia would help avoid escalation.

To the GoP and conservatives I've been exposed to for my entire life - Legal Obligations are only things to be weaseled out of, if not outright ignored if there is no enforceable penalty or immediate consequence. They don't want to be forced into anything, and in this case Ukraine has caused Trump to be Impeached and start a failed coup that has resulted in no end of legal troubles for him. Trump wants them hurting, and he's succeeding as much as I hate to see it.

The deserving poor is a concept that goes back centuries. Right wing Christianity has come to embrace the notion that if you are poor, there is an overwhelming likelihood that it is because of poor life choices. Your attempts to draw attention to a myriad of different scenarios in which this is not the case are all but certain to fall on deaf ears, because those situations are seen as being extremely rare.

There was an article in 2019 which addresses this issue pretty well.

It’s Their Own Fault? Christians and the (Un)Deserving Poor

I think this philosophy is so popular because it means the people who hold it (i.e. Successful ones in positions far less desperate) can tell themselves that the choices they've made are the right ones. Since anyone who holds this opinion actively defies the teachings of Christ I'm confident saying that many of those other decisions are others Christ wouldn't agree with, and this philosophy directly reinforces those bad decisions as "Pragmatic but necessary".

As someone with a lot of debt experience, let me tell you it usually has nothing to do with responsibility.

1. You can't pay off debt with money you don't have: a lot of people, like myself, have been struggling to find employment that pays enough to not only live by but also enough to pay off debts. There is work out there, but the higher salary jobs are also highly competitive jobs. Employers can afford to be choosy with hiring for high salary jobs. Lower wage jobs, which there are a whole lot more of, are everywhere but most people can't live on a low wage salary.

2. Interest: Once you get into debt, it's like quicksand. Unless you are able to pay it off quickly, it never wants to let you go.

3. Necessity: In order to survive, you may need to take advantage of everything you can, loans, credit, etc.. So it piles up.

4. In Order to get a job...: You often have to do everything you can to make yourself more attractive to potential employers even if it meas spending money on advanced education, and even then there is no guarantee that it will work.

5. Life throws curve balls: You may think you are on the path to a stable life, but then you know what happens. You or other family members get sick, you lose your job, your house burns down, whatever. these things happen and it only increases the possibility of going into debt.

6. Taxes: Ah, taxes. The more you earn the more you pay in taxes, up to a point.

7. Even if you try to save or invest...: See 5. You might need to access that money early to deal with the unexpected or just to survive. Even if you do save, usually it is for retirement and these days, either you retire early as a rich person or you work until you drop.

I wonder if Mets will come back to this post (which might impact his thought processes) or if it will be ignored as it was posted after he started his responses?

It has nothing to do with what anyone “thinks” — the fact is that you asked a loaded question and have repeatedly lied and tried to accuse others of “insulting” you simply for pointing out the truth.

It’s clear that you are deflecting because you don’t want to discuss the Nazis and white supremacists within the Republican Party and would rather focus blame and attention elsewhere.

You wont even address Nazis at the CPAC — what’s “insulting” is thinking people can’t see through your misleading rhetoric which attempts to give cover and support to the white nationalist policies of the Republican Party.

Lol.

Brilliant. Fantastic.

The reason that CPAC used a symbol associated with white supremacy - and why CPAC openly embraced Nazis this year, and why the GOP constantly uses blatant Nazi propaganda and symbols to signal their support to their base is…

Because us libruls are too whiney for the right to take seriously when we point out Nazi symbols.

So, the blatant and unmistakeable Nazification of the right is the fault of the left.

Wow, Mets.

Wow.

Please stop walking down that path. Please.

It's easy to maintain that he had originally asked for 3 things when the person providing the proof for everyone to see is on his ignore list. Shifting the goalposts, ignoring everything brought up/posted by more than just a few posters, and demanding that they then waste more of their time reposting the same evidence (with no confidence it will be accepted even then) is far more insulting than pointing out double standards & other behaviors which an individual displays often enough for it to be a recognized pattern.

But claiming that Nazi comparisons are so patently ridiculous because the GoP hasn't engaged in Genocide yet is an idea that requires us to give the GoP a chance to commit the eradication of Transgenderism they've been actively calling for and become a 100% match before making any comparisons. That concept flies in the face of studying history and applying it to any modern happenings whatsoever (Vaccine Misinformation, Economic Trends, Legal Precedent, Global Societal Interaction, etc) and seems to be opposed to the concepts of education & critical thinking.



I'd like to seriously second CaptainEurope's statement. Please stop this Mets. I don't know what you consider this behavior to be (Clever, Educational, Wise, Reasonable, whatever) but it should be clear to you by now that this isn't how it comes across to others. Think of it as changing your approach to teaching students who don't seem to understand what you are saying, and are taking whatever you are saying as arrogant, dismissive, and anything but civil or respectful. I have no expectation that you'll read this, but never let it be said that I haven't tried to be constructive. Like when I've encouraged you to try and do something about a Republican party that's deviating so far from what you believe in, and suggested ways you could do so. Or when I've asked your suggestions on what moderate conservatives (who like you are willing to vote for Biden over Trump) could do to bring the GoP back into what they've been in the past other than vote.

[Jack Dracula]

I’m sure moderate-minded members of the 1919 German Workers Party and Boris Yeltsin’s administration made similar arguments about how people were over-reacting or misunderstanding the obvious signs of the authoritarian and autocratic turns their parties were taking.

[comictimes]

Newsom says GOP candidate Nikki Haley is one of Democrats’ ‘best surrogates’

[zinderel]

https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americ...americans-knew

Look at these headlines from before America entered WW2.

We KNEW what the Nazis were up to. But we didn’t care enough to DO anything about it.

Just like we know what the modern GOP openly states that it wants for women, people of color, immigrants, the working poor, and queer Americans.

The question is if we will actually care enough this time to stop it BEFORE it gets to concentration camps on American soil (again…).

[Jack Dracula]

https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americ...americans-knew

Look at these headlines from before America entered WW2.

We KNEW what the Nazis were up to. But we didn’t care enough to DO anything about it.

Just like we know what the modern GOP openly states that it wants for women, people of color, immigrants, the working poor, and queer Americans.

The question is if we will actually care enough this time to stop it BEFORE it gets to concentration camps on American soil (again…).

I should mention Trump has stated as part of his Agenda 47 that homeless Amercan citizens will be rounded up and sent to tent camps in the more desolate parts of the country.
Moderate Republicans are fond of slippery slope arguments so how’s this? If a local official pushes a landlord to evict someone who says something “bad” online does that “homeless” person immediately become eligible for a trip to one of these camps?

[Mister Mets]

Lol.

Brilliant. Fantastic.

The reason that CPAC used a symbol associated with white supremacy, and why CPAC openly embraced Nazis this year, and why the GOP constantly uses blatant Nazi propaganda and symbols to signal their support to their base isn’t because the GOP is demonstrably more and more like the Nazis they love virtue signalling to. No, the reason we THINK they’re embracing Nazism is…

Because us libruls are too whiney for the right to take seriously when we point out Nazi symbols.

So, the blatant and unmistakeable Nazification of the right is the fault of the left.

Wow, Mets.

Wow.

My guess is the likeliest reason CPAC used a symbol associated with white supremacy was that it was an accident.

I was unaware that they openly embraced Nazis. What are you referring to with that comment? Links would be appreciated.

If there is not blatant and unmistakable Nazification, that would reflect poorly on anyone making those claims.

Please stop walking down that path. Please.

Can you clarify please? What have I said that you disagree with?

I should mention Trump has stated as part of his Agenda 47 that homeless Amercan citizens will be rounded up and sent to tent camps in the more desolate parts of the country.
Moderate Republicans are fond of slippery slope arguments so how’s this? If a local official pushes a landlord to evict someone who says something “bad” online does that “homeless” person immediately become eligible for a trip to one of these camps?

I would imagine it takes more for a person to be homeless than for a landlord to be upset by something bad they said online.

But what protections would you like for people who say something "bad" online? What should the laws be to avoid people getting fired for that?

[Jack Dracula]

My guess is the likeliest reason CPAC used a symbol associated with white supremacy was that it was an accident.

I was unaware that they openly embraced Nazis. What are you referring to with that comment? Links would be appreciated.

If there is not blatant and unmistakable Nazification, that would reflect poorly on anyone making those claims.

Can you clarify please? What have I said that you disagree with?

I would imagine it takes more for a person to be homeless than for a landlord to be upset by something bad they said online.

But what protections would you like for people who say something "bad" online? What should the laws be to avoid people getting fired for that?

Take it easy. You’re fond of speculation. I’m just speculating about how what the front-runner of your party has stated as one of his plans may be used to suppress dissent.