Anonymous wrote:MAGAs think Trump will never come for them. They think they’re special. Until they run out of money and start complaining. And then not so special anymore. Then the cult leader gets angry because suddenly, you don’t seem to enjoy life in the compound.
Anonymous wrote:MAGAs think Trump will never come for them. They think they’re special. Until they run out of money and start complaining. And then not so special anymore. Then the cult leader gets angry because suddenly, you don’t seem to enjoy life in the compound.
Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to the Republicans who were against big government because they didn't want a surveillance state? Can we have those folks back? Step up and kick out the bums who want to spy on you.
Any Republican not speaking out against this is a problem.
Anonymous wrote:I won't talk about immigrants and human rights or ruined trade deals and the death of American farms or say "how is this America first."
All things considered, reviewing five years of a tourist's social media is not as horrific as other moves. But it suggests:
*utter disregard for the First Amendment
*our government going into mass surveillance mode
*a very predictable and costly negative effects on tourism (already happening!)
This fascism pure and simple. If a democrat had ever approximated any plans of this kind, you all would have lost your minds.
I want to understand how ANYONE who believes in civil liberties and core American principles can defend this.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-tourists-social-media-history-5-years-trump/
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I've been telling my teenagers not to associate their social media with their real names. Nothing good can come of it and their friends know who they are anyway.
This won’t help.
If you’re OK with this because you can think you can just choose which social media accounts to reveal, I think you’ll find that how this works is a lot different from what you were expecting.
Explain.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I've been telling my teenagers not to associate their social media with their real names. Nothing good can come of it and their friends know who they are anyway.
I don’t have Facebook, but my dog from 2007 does, RIP.
Does your dog have a different ip address than you?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I've been telling my teenagers not to associate their social media with their real names. Nothing good can come of it and their friends know who they are anyway.
This won’t help.
If you’re OK with this because you can think you can just choose which social media accounts to reveal, I think you’ll find that how this works is a lot different from what you were expecting.
Anonymous wrote:I've been telling my teenagers not to associate their social media with their real names. Nothing good can come of it and their friends know who they are anyway.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They don’t care. They like the idea of excluding people whose views they disagree with. They do not actually care about the First Amendment. They see it only as a tool for ensuring they themselves are not silenced. They are perfectly happy with a double standard as long as it benefits them.
It isn't just views they disagree with. It is pretext to bar anyone they want from entering the country. And they are totally fine with it. The goal is a white christian nationalist state.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How would they even do this logistically? How would they know if what was submitted is real or what wasn't submitted or what if soemone doesn't even have any or says they don't -- will they just believe that?
Putting aside the liberal histrionics, this is my problem with this. It simply seems unworkable.
Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to the Republicans who were against big government because they didn't want a surveillance state? Can we have those folks back? Step up and kick out the bums who want to spy on you.
Any Republican not speaking out against this is a problem.