• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Maggie’s Everyone freaking over TicToc being banned🤣

Never looked at TikTok and I am beyond caring. It is spyware for Chinese communists and now you know how strong their hold over American idiots has become. They are literally threatening mass suicides if it is banned. We can only hope.

And now you know how important it is to the Chinese Communists. The levels they are going to stop it are amazing. They have all their bought and paid for elected officials out there sucking the Chinese cock to try and stop it. It is a huge part of their election rigging strategy and I'm guessing the chinks decided they can live with Trump so Biden commies are out there shitting bricks.
 
It's an algorithm. If you only watch right leaning content and skip the left, it'll quit serving up the left.

It's not like blocking it will do anything. TOR or a VPN can put you in any country in the world instantly. Just adds 1 step.

This is why people who don't understand tech shouldn't be voting or writing bills about it. They're far too ignorant of the way the tech works and the ability to bypass censorship.

This really is about freedom of speech. We're at the top of a slippery slope and most here are too old to see the bottom of that slope they're desperately trying to throw the rest of us down.

Not sure I agree. I shared a YouTube video of my kid shooting steel with someone. And it was flaged/removed as promoting dangerous behavior. But kids in drag are good and allowed.

Anyways. Yeah, I don't use it and don't understand it. My limited exposure has shifted my views on the subject. Fuck all that shit. I'm the mean dad who won't get his kids a phone. My oldest got one when he was 17 and got a job and signed up for his own plan.

Censorship is one thing, but inviting your enemy into your house and surrendering yourself to their will is another.
 
I admit I haven't read the actual legislation. But it appears they're using TikTok as a scapegoat to get legislation to get, surprise, more control over everything. If this for TikTok and only TikTok, I'd be onboard but it appears there's more "pork" to consider. Again, surprise/rolleyes.


And if you look at the actual legislation, there are segments in it that say anything that can be construed as election interference can get you shut down. Which means that when they say til-Tok they really mean Elon musk’s Twitter.

Don’t for a second think this is about TikTok. This is about shutting down musk.

Sirhr
 
Not sure I agree. I shared a YouTube video of my kid shooting steel with someone. And it was flaged/removed as promoting dangerous behavior. But kids in drag are good and allowed.

Anyways. Yeah, I don't use it and don't understand it. My limited exposure has shifted my views on the subject. Fuck all that shit. I'm the mean dad who won't get his kids a phone. My oldest got one when he was 17 and got a job and signed up for his own plan.

Censorship is one thing, but inviting your enemy into your house and surrendering yourself to their will is another.
Then the legislation needs to be changed to ONLY be about Tik Tok and have Congress sign off on it's formal ban. No more language than that and let it ride through the process on its own merits. But that's not the goal.
 
Ever heard of Libs of Tiktok? She demonstrated what TikTok is all about. It’s kiddyporn lite. It’s for mentally ill sickos and pervs. It has no value. It’s foreign owned and designed to corrupt our society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yasherka
Ever heard of Libs of Tiktok? She demonstrated what TikTok is all about. It’s kiddyporn lite. It’s for mentally ill sickos and pervs. It has no value. It’s foreign owned and designed to corrupt our society.
So is porn, the MSM, college and public school teachers, etc. That is a very hollow argument. No one here is saying that TT is the greatest thing since sliced bread. What IS occurring is the acknowledgement that if this passes there will be bad things for everyone lying just over the next terrain feature - censorship of information and by extension thought - IOW, the Frist Amendment becomes even more of a state-sanctioned, approved vocalization.

This thread makes me think that all the energy spent in the thread about God-given rights is nothing more than bloviating and the same hot air that the corrupt politicians use - it's a right until it goes against what we want. That is not a good path to go down.
 
Last edited:
Ever heard of Libs of Tiktok? She demonstrated what TikTok is all about. It’s kiddyporn lite. It’s for mentally ill sickos and pervs. It has no value. It’s foreign owned and designed to corrupt our society.
Ever heard of Facebook?
allows terrorists to communicate, allows child trafficking to take place, donated 400million dollars to interfere in an US presidential election.
 
Are we all reading the same bill? I fear we might be confusing it with last year's bill, which was long, poorly written, and sucked. This bill is short, to the point and seems pretty clear. It definitely says, "SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS." The definition of foreign adversary is very well defined in federal law. I admit more nations could be added in the future, but right now there are only 5. The list includes China.

 
Are we all reading the same bill? I fear we might be confusing it with last year's bill, which was long, poorly written, and sucked. This bill is short, to the point and seems pretty clear. It definitely says, "SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS." The definition of foreign adversary is very well defined in federal law. I admit more nations could be added in the future, but right now there are only 5. The list includes China.


Here is the link to the proposed legislation. Post #23 on this thread explains why this is an issue. It aint about TT. One thing I didn't mention in that post is that it could conceivably pull in the SEC to ensure all listed tech companies are in compliance. More Sarbanes-Oxley type BS.

This bill runs the risk of having various regulators and agencies pulled into the fray to ensure the First Amendment is limited to what is approved, as defined every four years by the incoming president/ his administration and changed as needed. Of course, that will require more tax money to increase the bureaucracy.

 
Last edited:
Tiktok turned our youth against Israel in a manner of a couple months. The same can be done against us because our youth is stupid.
Israel pretty much did that themselves, TikTok is just one of the few sources US three letter agencies do not moderate 24/7, look at who is employed in Facebook,MSM,Twatter ,You tube, all are loaded up to the hilt with former 3 letter agency folks doing 3 letter agency bidding on the private company dime, a public private partnership of sorts, ever since Black Berry legalised use of propaganda against Americans . 3 letter agencies have more staff off books working in the 'private sector' than on the federal payroll.

Do you really think these folks are employed on thier merit ? Its more along the lines ''nice company you have there , would be shame if something happened to it '', but you are in luck you only need to employ 100 or so of our folks to keep you safe . Its in essence a mafia style protection racket.

Remember at that time Black Berry's excuse was, we needed to propagandise Cubans in Miami .
 
Never looked at TikTok and I am beyond caring. It is spyware for Chinese communists and now you know how strong their hold over American idiots has become. They are literally threatening mass suicides if it is banned. We can only hope.

And now you know how important it is to the Chinese Communists. The levels they are going to stop it are amazing. They have all their bought and paid for elected officials out there sucking the Chinese cock to try and stop it. It is a huge part of their election rigging strategy and I'm guessing the chinks decided they can live with Trump so Biden commies are out there shitting bricks.
This has nothing to do with nation vs nation. It’s globalists/eugenecists, the governments they own, & their minions vs the people that just want to be left alone to live our lives.
 
And if you look at the actual legislation, there are segments in it that say anything that can be construed as election interference can get you shut down. Which means that when they say til-Tok they really mean Elon musk’s Twitter.

Don’t for a second think this is about TikTok. This is about shutting down musk.

Sirhr

I missed that. Where in the bill does it say it?
 
Here's a link toa pdf of the text of the bill. Just so we're all talking about the same thing.


It's not long, 13 pages. I've read it a few times and I just can't see, at least as it was passed by the House, that it poses the threat to American owned sites some are seeing in it. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, certainly possible, but the bill says over and over, "foreign adversary nations".


That term is not open to conjunture. The definition is very clearly set out in law and unless Musk allows more than 20% investment from one of only 5 nations, Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, I just can't see the threat to his X.
 
Here's a link toa pdf of the text of the bill. Just so we're all talking about the same thing.


It's not long, 13 pages. I've read it a few times and I just can't see, at least as it was passed by the House, that it poses the threat to American owned sites some are seeing in it. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, certainly possible, but the bill says over and over, "foreign adversary nations".


That term is not open to conjunture. The definition is very clearly set out in law and unless Musk allows more than 20% investment from one of only 5 nations, Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, I just can't see the threat to his X.

That’s my reading as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Downtown
try REREADING this part...

Unless the bots are out and patting each other on the back,

page 8
16 (ii) has more than 1,000,000 monthly 17 active users with respect to at least 2 of 18 the 3 months preceding the date on which 19 a relevant determination of the President 20 is made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B)
page 9
(B) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘‘covered com9 pany’’ does not include an entity that operates 10 a website, desktop application, mobile applica11 tion,
 
try REREADING this part...

Unless the bots are out and patting each other on the back,

page 8
16 (ii) has more than 1,000,000 monthly 17 active users with respect to at least 2 of 18 the 3 months preceding the date on which 19 a relevant determination of the President 20 is made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B)
page 9
(B) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘‘covered com9 pany’’ does not include an entity that operates 10 a website, desktop application, mobile applica11 tion,

Foreign adversary. Do you understand what that means?
 
Who should make such a determination if not the president?
For purposes of trade it is the Commerce Secretary, per Title 15. This TT bill doesn't say that, just the President.


It would appear that this legislation would fall under Title 15. Or Title 15 should have been used already and this is not a useful bill.


"Information and communications technology or services or ICTS means any hardware, software, including connected software applications, or other product or service, including cloud-computing services, primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information or data processing, storage, retrieval, or communication by electronic means (including electromagnetic, magnetic, and photonic), including through transmission, storage, or display.

Party or parties to a transaction means a person engaged in an ICTS Transaction, including the person acquiring the ICTS and the person from whom the ICTS is acquired. Party or parties to a transaction include entities designed, or otherwise used with the intention, to evade or circumvent application of the Executive Order. For purposes of this rule, this definition does not include common carriers, except to the extent that a common carrier knew or should have known (as the term “knowledge” is defined in 15 CFR 772.1) that it was providing transportation services of ICTS to one or more of the parties to a transaction that has been prohibited in a final written determination made by the Secretary or, if permitted subject to mitigation measures, in violation of such mitigation measures."
 
  • Like
Reactions: FieldGaugeFailure
So in your opinion the unaccountable deep state should make that determination instead of the president. Ok.
 
So in your opinion the unaccountable deep state should make that determination instead of the president. Ok.
Not my opinion. Its the law, via Executive Order.
 
Not my opinion. Its the law, via Executive Order.
It doesn’t matter what the law is via executive order. This bill reiterates the president’s responsibility. Congress doesn’t legislate around executive orders.
 
It doesn’t matter what the law is via executive order. This bill reiterates the president’s responsibility.
Yeah, you are right. It doesn't matter what they law says. Isn't the First Amendment a law? If not, this whole conversation is moot.

And this TT bill doesn't state WHO designates what a foreign adversary is defined as. Title 15, however, does. That is why it is relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: babyguppy
Who gives a shit ???
It’s mostly kids and the app is VERY intrusive from my understanding…https://www.youtube.com/live/l8h3AFKrADo?si=-d2gZ3o9PKQOxbOZ
Yeah but it allows .gov to ban any website or app they deem "dangerous".....that's not a good thing. Elons X will be next cause they don't like him.....then Franks site will be banned because we talk about guns...then anything that doesn't go into lockstep with whatever administration is in power at the time....and I guarantee that during election times any conservative site will be deemed "dangerous"......IT WILL HAPPEN.

Doc
 
  • Like
Reactions: W54/XM-388
Yeah, you are right. It doesn't matter what they law says. Isn't the First Amendment a law? If not, this whole conversation is moot.

And this TT bill doesn't state WHO designates what a foreign adversary is defined as. Title 15, however, does. That is why it is relevant.

Sure it does:

“(4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term ‘‘foreign adversary country’’ means a country speci- fied in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.”

Additionally, Congress writes and rewrites the law, not the president. Legislation through executive order is always frowned upon.
 
It doesn’t matter what the law is via executive order. This bill reiterates the president’s responsibility. Congress doesn’t legislate around executive orders.
Do you really believe that? I mean really. Its hard as they have to have 2/3 majority in the House and Senate (because the president will veto it), but it can be done.

The President is not a dictator.

Congress has the authority to overturn an Executive Order through the following actions:
Passing Legislation (addressed above)
Funding Control: Denying necessary funding
Judicial Review: IF the EO goes beyond the limits of the Constitutional authority of the president the courts can overturn it or stay the enforcement of it.
 
Sure it does:

“(4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term ‘‘foreign adversary country’’ means a country speci- fied in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.”

Additionally, Congress writes and rewrites the law, not the president. Legislation through executive order is always frowned upon.
Im not sure how much it is frowned upon. It has been used since Washington. Doesn't seem to be as anathema as most would like. On the contrary, its extremely common and no one in Congress really bitches about it.
 
Im not sure how much it is frowned upon. It has been used since Washington. Doesn't seem to be as anathema as most would like. On the contrary, its extremely common and no one in Congress really bitches about it.

Maybe you need a civics lesson. In the US congress legislates, not the president. Executive orders are meant for agencies in the executive branch, not for the general public. Just because executive orders have been used to go after individuals doesn’t make it right.
 
Yeah but it allows .gov to ban any website or app they deem "dangerous".....that's not a good thing. Elons X will be next cause they don't like him.....then Franks site will be banned because we talk about guns...then anything that doesn't go into lockstep with whatever administration is in power at the time....and I guarantee that during election times any conservative site will be deemed "dangerous"......IT WILL HAPPEN.

Doc
Yeah I read the whole write up on it and realized it’s 100% anti freedom. Typical leftist behavior and ridiculous. Biden is an idiot and the democrats all suck. The right wing isn’t much better considering how many of them backed it and hell at this point we’re all going to be lucky if they don’t get us into a nuclear war with Russia! So much going on and distractions yet all seem to have the same end game, we as free American won’t be free much longer…
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc68
Do you really believe that? I mean really. Its hard as they have to have 2/3 majority in the House and Senate (because the president will veto it), but it can be done.

The President is not a dictator.

Congress has the authority to overturn an Executive Order through the following actions:
Passing Legislation (addressed above)
Funding Control: Denying necessary funding
Judicial Review: IF the EO goes beyond the limits of the Constitutional authority of the president the courts can overturn it or stay the enforcement of it.

Congress doesn’t need a 2/3 majority to pass laws. They need a simple majority and the bill goes to the president. If the president signs the bill the prior executive order is no longer in effect to the extent it conflicts with the new law.
 
Congress doesn’t need a 2/3 majority to pass laws. They need a simple majority and the bill goes to the president. If the president signs the bill the prior executive order is no longer in effect to the extent it conflicts with the new law.
That’s nowhere in what I said. I stated that Congress can override an EO via a 2/3 majority in both Houses.
 
Maybe you need a civics lesson. In the US congress legislates, not the president. Executive orders are meant for agencies in the executive branch, not for the general public. Just because executive orders have been used to go after individuals doesn’t make it right.
I’m thinking you aren’t listening or are trolling at this point. Nowhere did I say anything about EOs and individuals being specifically targeted.

You do bring up an interesting point though: EOs are not legislation since they don’t go through the legislative branch, but do have the power of law.
 
Last edited:
That’s nowhere in what I said. I stated that Congress can override an EO via a 2/3 majority in both Houses.

But that’s completely unnecessary as is the rest of your post. Biden said he will sign the bill if it passes the senate. Once he signs it the bill trumps any executive order or regulation.
 
I’m thinking you aren’t listening or are trolling at this point. Nowhere did I say anything about EOs and individuals being specifically targeted.

But you dwell on this EO being law. Why? Who gives a shit? Congress doesn’t care about any EO.
 
But you dwell on this EO being law. Why? Who gives a shit? Congress doesn’t care about any EO.
Again, who decides who is a foreign actor? Where does that ruling come from?
 
Again, who decides who is a foreign actor? Where does that ruling come from?

It’s not just any foreign actor. It one of the specified countries listed in 10 USC 4872. And the president gets to make that call because he is The Authority on setting foreign policy. Congress is telling him he can’t pass the buck to some administrative agency. He has to make the call, publish the reasons, and take the heat for it.
 
It’s not just any foreign actor. It one of the specified countries listed in 10 USC 4872. And the president gets to make that call because he is The Authority on setting foreign policy. Congress is telling him he can’t pass the buck to some administrative agency. He has to make the call, publish the reasons, and take the heat for it.
I can agree with that. But what they are not doing is negating the EO that gave the power to make the determination to the secretary of commerce. That individual is part of the administration and working with other agencies to determine who gets on the list. This list is worked on by unelected officials and then recommends changes to the list as I outlined in the link above. This means the president, while ultimately responsible in this bill is not the one deciding who gets on the list. On a practical level I understand why this is - he cannot be expected to do everything all the time, he needs help.

§ 7.4 Determination of foreign adversaries.​

(a) The Secretary has determined that the following foreign governments or foreign non-government persons have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons and, therefore, constitute foreign adversaries solely for the purposes of the Executive Order, this rule, and any subsequent rule:
(1) The People's Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (China);
(2) Republic of Cuba (Cuba);
(3) Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran);
(4) Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea);
(5) Russian Federation (Russia); and
(6) Venezuelan politician Nicolás Maduro (Maduro Regime).
(b) The Secretary's determination of foreign adversaries is solely for the purposes of the Executive Order, this rule, and any subsequent rule promulgated pursuant to the Executive Order. Pursuant to the Secretary's discretion, the list of foreign adversaries will be revised as determined to be necessary. Such revisions will be effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register without prior notice or opportunity for public comment.
(c) The Secretary's determination is based on multiple sources, including:
(1) National Security Strategy of the United States;
(2) The Director of National Intelligence's 2016–2019 Worldwide Threat Assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community;
(3) The 2018 National Cyber Strategy of the United States of America; and
(4) Reports and assessments from the U.S. Intelligence Community, the U.S. Departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security, and other relevant sources.
(d) (d) The Secretary will periodically review this list in consultation with appropriate agency heads and may add to, subtract from, supplement, or otherwise amend this list. Any amendment to this list will apply to any ICTS Transaction that is initiated, pending, or completed on or after the date that the list is amended.

It is interesting that Pakistan and other countries aren’t on that list.
 
Last edited:
im waiting for that elusive gamma ray or pulsar blast 💥
 
That’s what the MSM is doing already. I don’t see them listed in this legislation.

Myopia is running rampant with this topic.
You are correct... until the Executive branch deems something like Fox News, or Epoch Times, or Breitbart News, or anything else as evil. POOF gone and no recourse. Congress can not discuss it in public. This is really and evil piece of legislation. If Joe is ready to sign it... BE AFRAID, be VERY AFRAID.
 
Who should make such a determination if not the president?
The American Public, that's who. 1st Amendment. Good, Bad, Ugly, True, False, whatever. The 'Government' has no right to limit anyone's speech. It's all spelled out in the stupid document called 'THE CONSTITUTION'. Please, for the grace of God, read it.
 
Oh yeah...I'm just in a panic....lol I don't do social blather

1710466070613.png
 
I can agree with that. But what they are not doing is negating the EO that gave the power to make the determination to the secretary of commerce. That individual is part of the administration and working with other agencies to determine who gets on the list. This list is worked on by unelected officials and then recommends changes to the list as I outlined in the link above. This means the president, while ultimately responsible in this bill is not the one deciding who gets on the list. On a practical level I understand why this is - he cannot be expected to do everything all the time, he needs help.

§ 7.4 Determination of foreign adversaries.​

(a) The Secretary has determined that the following foreign governments or foreign non-government persons have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons and, therefore, constitute foreign adversaries solely for the purposes of the Executive Order, this rule, and any subsequent rule:
(1) The People's Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (China);
(2) Republic of Cuba (Cuba);
(3) Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran);
(4) Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea);
(5) Russian Federation (Russia); and
(6) Venezuelan politician Nicolás Maduro (Maduro Regime).
(b) The Secretary's determination of foreign adversaries is solely for the purposes of the Executive Order, this rule, and any subsequent rule promulgated pursuant to the Executive Order. Pursuant to the Secretary's discretion, the list of foreign adversaries will be revised as determined to be necessary. Such revisions will be effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register without prior notice or opportunity for public comment.
(c) The Secretary's determination is based on multiple sources, including:
(1) National Security Strategy of the United States;
(2) The Director of National Intelligence's 2016–2019 Worldwide Threat Assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community;
(3) The 2018 National Cyber Strategy of the United States of America; and
(4) Reports and assessments from the U.S. Intelligence Community, the U.S. Departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security, and other relevant sources.
(d) (d) The Secretary will periodically review this list in consultation with appropriate agency heads and may add to, subtract from, supplement, or otherwise amend this list. Any amendment to this list will apply to any ICTS Transaction that is initiated, pending, or completed on or after the date that the list is amended.

It is interesting that Pakistan and other countries aren’t on that list.

Pakistan used to be an ally a few years ago. I dunno what the current relations are like.

Congress doesn’t have to void an EO in new legislation because it is naturally assumed that congressional legislation signed into law trumps a contrary EO.

Maybe congress wants everyone to know how serious this is. Telling a president he can’t delegate something like this shows that it is to be applied sparingly.
 
Last edited:
The American Public, that's who. 1st Amendment. Good, Bad, Ugly, True, False, whatever. The 'Government' has no right to limit anyone's speech. It's all spelled out in the stupid document called 'THE CONSTITUTION'. Please, for the grace of God, read it.

They aren’t limiting anyone’s speech. They are telling a foreign company to fuck off. China doesn’t have a right to do business here. It’s a privilege. You don’t have a right to a platform. You have a right to speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Downtown
Maybe congress wants everyone to know how serious this is. Telling a president he can’t delegate something like this shows that it is to be applied sparingly.
I truly want you to be right in this regard. My concern is that presidents have a tendency to shift with the wind, and if it blows in the wrong direction it could be a bad deal. Character stays the course.
 
I truly want you to be right in this regard. My concern is that presidents have a tendency to shift with the wind, and if it blows in the wrong direction it could be a bad deal. Character stays the course.

I’m hoping TikTok can be acquired by an American investor group. I saw some people are organizing for this possibility. Maybe it will work out.