It's pretty ironic to hear that from a right-winger, the party of those who get their marching orders on what to think and say from Fox News daily.

I don't subscribe to the times so didn't see the details. But I'm suspicious of that claim. I can point to a million examples of former leftists who support Trump. For example the former head of NPR. I don't see the point though.

Conservatives: Some people have more, some people have less. Must be from their effort. I'll go to work today and contribute.

Leftists: Some people have more, some people have less. Those who have less must be all victims. Maybe I'm a victim too! Uncle Sam, give us more money!!

Shepherds, and sheep.

See? This is a prime example of projection.

I put them in the post for you. This conversation will die quickly if you don't read the posts.

What claim?

I call. I'd be surprised if you could find a dozen.

This seems like a gross misrepresentation of the left's position, but I'll let others elaborate on that.

That's just your opinion. I don't understand why you keep stating opinions as fact.

Google doesn't speak. It is a platform for speech. That's essentially its business model. Google is an aggregator of information. It also presents that information. When one corporation controls it, it's dangerous. Elections can be easily influenced based on certain sites not appearing in searches. There has to be some way to ensure that doesn't happen. I haven't found the right way, but there should be a way.

OK. I'm almost certain you're projecting there. Better?

The problem is that all trump has to do is force allies to chose and they will inevitably choose the usa over china. And he is having some real success, Huawei being the obvious example. Anti-China sentiment is also palpably growing.

Of course it is the case that there are serious issues with China as well and a lot of people are going to be sympathetic to anyone attacking them (even trump). Much as there clearly major issues wth China, I'm very dubious that this approach is a good thing but then again I suppose some would say that's par for the course with me.

Rather than have me hunt down the leftys who've switched sides, why don't we break this down for a moment. Do you know what an argumentum ad populum is? I'd like you to learn about it, since it applies here.

I was being facetious, as you know. Anyway, you're wrong. But as I said, I'll let others weigh in on the general left vs. right discussion if they want to.

Google is a private entity and enjoys the right of free speech, including what content it does and does not want to present to its consumers. As a simpler example, I could start a company which runs a web site tomorrow that purports to be an aggregator of news articles. I am well within my rights to choose what articles I do and do not present to the users of my web site. That is my company exercising its right to free speech.

The way to "control" it through regulation. But that presumably conflicts with your principles, no?

In other news, you might not have heard, but corporations are people for political speech purposes now. You can thank Citizens United and the Supreme Court for that.

Yes, I do. Please continue.

Could you please also answer the other questions in the post to which the above was a response? Thanks.

I don't think you do.

All you're doing is saying that a guy converted to thinking Trump is an authoritarian. So what? I really don't care. And I'm not sure why you care. Think for yourself.

Be a shepherd!!!!

Oh, I arrived at the conclusion that Trump has authoritarian tendencies long ago for myself. You seem to be struggling though, so I thought reading the opinions of someone on your own side would help. It seems you are refusing to even read the article and respond to it on its merits, though, but have come out with ad hominem attacks against the author off the bat. It's not behind a paywall.

Generally, while we should all arrive at our own opinions, it helps to be educated and informed by also reading the opinions of others. Opinions are not formed in a vacuum. Sometimes, it is even OK to be swayed by the opinions of others, if they make a persuasive case for them. In fact, that is how intelligent people operate. The "sheep" are the ones who think they are always right and stubbornly refuse to change their mind at all costs. But I'm sure you know this.

This entire thread is nonsense, of course, but this post is worse than most.

First of all it's pretty laughable to talk about Biden being gone when Trump can't even form a sentence without concocting some kind of word salad that even he can't understand. I mean the guy was never that bright to begin with but he's just an embarrassment now.

Being tough on China is of course all bullshit too. Sure he pays lip service to it but when it comes to what he actually does it's been weak across the board. First he told Xi that he didn't care one iota about the subjugation of Hong Kong or the internment camps in Xinjiang so long as it meant the trade deal could get signed, and then in the deal itself he gave Beijing pretty much everything it wanted. Mainly because he didn't care at all whether the deal with the US was good or not, all he cared about was getting one signed so that he could brag about an accomplishment for the election. And if the deal was bad for the US it wouldn't matter anyways because Trump would just lie about it, just like he lies about everything.

Plus if you're concerned about Biden's son, who isn't even in government, what are your feelings on Ivanka Trump getting Chinese trademarks so that her and her husband can continue to make hundreds of millions of dollars while they both actively work in the White House? Just a total joke the entire way around.

No, I couldn't view it. NYT limits how many articles you see in a month. I saw the headline and a few lines.

It wasn't ad hominem, it was common sense. A man who works in a left wing university has much to gain from spouting very popular opinions in his circles. Regardless, it's irrelevant. I see what you're trying to do, and it's not working, and it's actually a waste of time. You've accused me of failing to convince you. Now you're failing to convince me. I don't take character judgements from other people. I make them for myself and it's served me well in other areas of life. If Trump does convince me he wants to be a dictator, I'll be the first guy denouncing him.

Intelligent people should consider options but they should always go take counsel from themselves in the final judgement. You make mistakes but grow from it that way. Otherwise you're always dependent on others.

If your claim that he has much to gain is true, then the corollary would be that he also had much to lose by defending Trump in the past, so my spidey senses are telling me that he is not a partisan hack. Common sense, yo.

"Dictator" and "authoritarian" are different things (although one individual could be both), and I have been using the latter. What would it take to convince you that Trump has authoritarian tendencies? Before you answer, keep in mind that many authoritarians start off by being democratically elected, and do not instantly announce to the world "my goal is to become an authoritarian".

Your contribution is pretty awful as well.

https://www.ft.com/content/6822dffd-...9-c6ee29a345d4

As we speak Trump is working on protecting Hong Kong's autonomy:

"The law, dubbed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, would slap mandatory sanctions on Chinese officials and companies that helped back Beijing’s imposition of a security law that clamps down on dissent in Hong Kong. The sanctions bill passed both houses of Congress earlier this month."

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/trum...hong-kong.html

Biden's son took billions of dollars. Ivanka wants trademarks (which are useless anyway in Asia, as they steal and copy everything) to protect her brand. Apple and oranges.

If they are useless, why does she want them?

Dude, give it up. I don't know why you want me to change my mind so bad.

As for the professor, who knows? who cares? I don't give a sh-t about his thoughts. Do you care about the former head of lefty NPR Ken Stern who now supports Trump? You shouldn't. Get a brain of your own.

Well they're probably practically useless. Lawsuits against Chinese companies haven't worked so far. If they had American corporations would be getting massive licensing deals.

I have just been responding to your posts. That's kind of how discussions work.

I probably wouldn't change my mind, but I wouldn't be as dismissive of what he has to say before even hearing it as you are of the Federalist Society guy.

Presumably she wants them because they confer some sort of financial benefit. That's common sense, wouldn't you say?

OK go research him now. Report back.

She's hoping to protect her brand from getting ripped off. That's pretty fair, wouldn't you say?