Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

Gradius

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

different rules for different people is unfair, that is correct. for the last few years a completely different set of rules have been applied to Trumps twitter account. they only banned him when they started applying the same rules to him that they applied to everybody else. There was a guy who setup a twitter that posted the same text as trump, verbatim. he was banned 4 times in the first 6 months.

There are plenty worse things said consistently and repeatedly across these platforms with no conequence every day.

It's all hypocrisy and mysterious inconsistency.

Kaybaykwah

Deleted User wrote: »

If you were in America, I reckon you'd have been on Capitol Hill the other day with the rest of the rednecks.


FYI- on CNN earlier today, an ex Republican Senator said "Trumpism is dead- it has no sustainable ideals, it's a cul de sac that the Republican party have now to back out of"

Even if a few million Americans think that Trump is god, at most, it will become a right wing facist minority wing of the party that will disintegrate over time.

Lol. Read my lisp (sic); Chump is my arch-non-idol.

I live only 40 minutes away form the American border, but believe me, these days, I am pretty content to have the borders closed off.


I am just saying that this Chump individual is not finished. I am not impressed with an ex-Rep senator to tell you the truth. The party had ample time to diagnose the beast.

What I am saying is he is beyond the Party, he has always been about himself anyways, he had never served in a political capacity before...

He is a great humanitarian and pussy grabber though...

Kaybaykwah

Gradius wrote: »

There are plenty worse things said consistently and repeatedly across these platforms with no conequence every day.

It's all hypocrisy and mysterious inconsistency.

Lol.

At the end of the day, your lack of hypocrisy will rule the world, girl.

MontgomeryClift

namloc1980 wrote: »

You missed the part with the police officer being crushed in the door I see. Typical Trumpist.

No. I saw that part, and the part after where the civilian put down the officer's visor to protect him from further harm and gestured for someone to come help him. It wasn't disturbing.

Gradius

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Lol.

At the end of the day, your lack of hypocrisy will rule the world, girl.

I'll take the first part as a compliment, and my lady-swooning shlong as a counter to your moniker

Kaybaykwah

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Lol. Read my lisp (sic);

He is a great humanitarian though...

Really? I suppose you think his post riot video was genuine and a great sign that he possesses great empathy and truly wants peace and reconciliation :rolleyes:

Weepsie

Gradius wrote: »

"No"

Well no point in going further then, is there? You've admitted in one word that you're implicitly biased.

It's people that "think" like you that need to be kept far away from influencing positions. The championing of unfairness, inequality, and common nonsense. Just once it suits, that's all that matters.

These platforms need to be spanked into reality, the sooner the better.

These platforms are private entitties that need only care about their bottom line at the end of the day. They can delete whomever they want, Trumo probably never read the terms of service

Weepsie

Gradius wrote: »

There are plenty worse things said consistently and repeatedly across these platforms with no conequence every day.

It's all hypocrisy and mysterious inconsistency.

PLenty of worse things, but mostly by nuts on either side with about 10 followers and no influence shooting at an empty room. This is not one of those cases

dwayneshintzy

Gradius, is it your view that there should be no moderation or censorship whatsoever on social media?

Kaybaykwah

Gradius wrote: »

There are plenty worse things said consistently and repeatedly across these platforms with no conequence every day.

It's all hypocrisy and mysterious inconsistency.

Girls and boys are only venting, though.

Might as well be more consitent when the need arises, like when an outgoing president, hanging on to power, grasping at straws, incites seditious acts.

The thought that he is ready to throw all these know-nothings to tthe lions for his self aggrandizement is sad, but real.

It is real in that these folks may all be condemned to 20 plus years imprisonment.

This doesn't take away from their personal responsibility, in particular this Babbitt lady who happened to be trained, special detail of the US Air Force Reserve for DC's Protection against such things.

Weepsie

Weepsie wrote: »

PLenty of worse things, but mostly by nuts on either side with about 10 followers and no influence shooting at an empty room. This is not one of those cases

Well if he invents his own Twitter, at least it will be well known as a looney bin source of truth- that in itself would be great as the general public could just instantly dismiss it for the crap it is.

Gradius

Weepsie wrote: »

These platforms are private entitties that need only care about their bottom line at the end of the day. They can delete whomever they want, Trumo probably never read the terms of service

That needs to change rapidly.

If all the major car manufacturers banned you from buying their cars because you wore brown shoes one day, even though plenty of other people wear brown shoes...would you be happy with "they're private companies, they can do what they want. Just build your own car"?

It's hypocritical nonsense that shouldn't be allowed. Rules for all or rules for nobody.

ohnonotgmail

Gradius wrote: »

There are plenty worse things said consistently and repeatedly across these platforms with no conequence every day.

It's all hypocrisy and mysterious inconsistency.

by accounts with 80M followers that have fomented sedition against the united states?

Overheal

All these so-called constitution loving Patriots sure do never seem to grasp how the constitution works. Whether it’s birthright citizenship, the census, either electoral college, the 25th, or the bill of rights.

I’ve spent the last 4 years at least explaining to local constituents, no, Mexicans are persons, yes, they are counted, no a fetus is not a citizen, yes, if you’re born here you’re a citizen, no, gun laws aren’t all unconstitutional, and yes, that means you don’t have a right to give kids live pineapple grenades as Halloween tricks. Go play!

They’re frustrated because at every turn the constitution enshrines that what they believe the constitution is, is unamerican. They don’t think courts get to interpret the law - unless it’s to eliminate a law they don’t like, or lock up someone they hate. They thought every executive order 44 wrote was “unconstitutional” because “only congress writes laws” but they also think an executive order gives Trump the power to assume full control of the country if the election wasn’t flawlessly executed, using the military to seize voting machines and records, hold officials to military tribunal and run the country under martial law while we have soldiers under Trumps command work the polls instead of civilians (EO 13848, and, no, it does none of that, but Parler would sure have you convinced).

So I guess the civics lesson on what the actual perfunctory duty of the congress and Vice President was in counting the electors was just the final straw for them. They clearly don’t care about the constitution, and want to supplant it with their own essentially neoconfederate interpretation.

I don’t know exactly how they all became radicalized so badly, it wasn’t just one man. But I do know that time after time ive seen my elected representative in Congress sit back as his constituents worked themselves up into frenzies over erroneous interpretations of the law - wouldn't a leader be able to swiftly tell them “no that’s not how our nation of laws work - the army can’t just be sent to the border to bayonet illegal immigrants.” That was a real long set of discussions had with voters in the eve of the 2018 midterms, when “migrant caravan invasions” were all the rage and then ****ed off to never be heard of again the morning after the election. But, while you would see my representative sometimes engage in these discussions, he would never dare correct one of his supporters on the reality of the law. Clearly, bursting their bubble was too much of a threat to their leadership!

Mitt Romney said it best Wednesday night, and he said it to a senatorial ovation:

"The best way we can show respect for the voters who were upset is by telling them the truth.”

Where you see misinformation fomenting among large groups of a politicians supporters, I want you to internalize this. I hope you reach out to that politician as soon as possible and plead with them to demystify their misunderstanding, because left to rot it can become the thing that destroys your country one day.

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd love to see what certain posters who are no longer around would have said about the latest stuff. I suspect certain posters would have claimed the insurrection to be justified.

Kid Chameleon would have said he finds the insurrection 'interesting' :rolleyes:

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Mitt Romney said it best Wednesday night, and he said it to a senatorial ovation:

"The best way we can show respect for the voters who were upset is by telling them the truth.”

took him long enough

Gradius

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Girls and boys are only venting, though.

Might as well be more consitent when the need arises, like when an outgoing president, hanging on to power, grasping at straws, incites seditious acts.

The thought that he is ready to throw all these know-nothings to tthe lions for his self aggrandizement is sad, but real.

It is real in that these folks may all be condemned to 20 plus years imprisonment.

This doesn't take away from their personal responsibility, in particular this Babbitt lady who happened to be trained, special detail of the US Air Force Reserve for DC's Protection against such things.

That's all grand, but what about the Malaysian guy stating that Muslims have a right to kill french people?

Is that message, amplified across the world, LESS dangerous than anything Trump said?

What do you think happened or will happen with that type of thing by way of consequence?

Nothing, that's what. And that's plain hypocrisy and bias.

PropJoe10

Gradius wrote: »

The problem is that some are allowed to fook around, others are not.

When a gigantic company can so easily shape public opinion to suit themselves through manipulation, it's a big problem, and one that needs fixing immediately.

You can turn that in whatever direction you want. Fox News and their opinion hosts masquerading as actual news reporters, for example.

There's a lot more wrong with the way that news is obtained these days than Donald Trump being suspended from Twitter.

dwayneshintzy

Muahahaha wrote: »

Kid Chameleon would have said he finds the insurrection 'interesting' :rolleyes:

As far as MAGA conservatives are concerned, the storming of the Capitol isn't a big issue. The main issue concerning the United States at the minute is Twitter banning Trump.


That's what they want the conversation to be about. Desperate, once again, to portray themselves as the victims.

namloc1980

This clown has been arrested

.

Gradius

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

by accounts with 80M followers that have fomented sedition against the united states?

So is it about volume? Is that the measure where hypocrisy ends?

By job title?

By influence?

Or, really, is it all about what suits on any given day for these companies? They had no problem making money hand over fist by hosting trump for years, and now that there's a new boss on the horizon they mysteriously change attitude. Surprise.

Are these the type of companies/people you want in charge of manipulating public opinion?

Gradius

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Gradius, is it your view that there should be no moderation or censorship whatsoever on social media?

Either complete, balanced moderation of everything, or just let it run wild.

Half-arsing it is the worst of the three options as it inevitably leads to manipulation.

There's a whole load of unintended consequences on the way, in my opinion.

Christy42

Gradius wrote: »

That's all grand, but what about the Malaysian guy stating that Muslims have a right to kill french people?

Is that message, amplified across the world, LESS dangerous than anything Trump said?

What do you think happened or will happen with that type of thing by way of consequence?

Nothing, that's what. And that's plain hypocrisy and bias.

Sure if he said it ban him, makes sense really. Plus unban all those accounts that got banned for copying Trump's tweets (long before the man himself was banned). That was pretty blatant hypocrisy and biased in favour of Trump. Weirdly he complained less about that bias.

However that guy seems like a pretty separate issue to Biden vs Trump. Am I allowed to commit the same crimes as those that Trump has pardoned (in the US obviously)? I mean we want to ensure all these powerful institutions are fair right?

ohnonotgmail

Gradius wrote: »

So is it about volume? Is that the measure where hypocrisy ends?

By job title?

By influence?

Or, really, is it all about what suits on any given day for these companies? They had no problem making money hand over fist by hosting trump for years, and now that there's a new boss on the horizon they mysteriously change attitude. Surprise.

Are these the type of companies/people you want in charge of manipulating public opinion?

you mean the way trump has manipulated public opinion by continually lying to them?

BobbyMalone

Gradius wrote: »

That needs to change rapidly.

If all the major car manufacturers banned you from buying their cars because you wore brown shoes one day, even though plenty of other people wear brown shoes...would you be happy with "they're private companies, they can do what they want. Just build your own car"?

It's hypocritical nonsense that shouldn't be allowed. Rules for all or rules for nobody.

Trump wasn't banned for wearing brown shoes, or anything innocuous like that. It was for inciting violence, which was against the t&cs that he agreed to when he signed up.


A better car example would be losing your licence when you use your car to kill someone by hitting them when breaking the speed limit.

Gradius

PropJoe10 wrote: »

You can turn that in whatever direction you want. Fox News and their opinion hosts masquerading as actual news reporters, for example.

There's a lot more wrong with the way that news is obtained these days than Donald Trump being suspended from Twitter.

No, the twitter precedent is worse as there is practically nothing of scale the same.

A more apt comparison would be criticising a Fox news organisation with millions of employees versus a corner newsstand. That's not reality though, and neither is diminishing the grip these two or three tech companies have on public influence.

runawaybishop

Gradius wrote: »

That needs to change rapidly.

If all the major car manufacturers banned you from buying their cars because you wore brown shoes one day, even though plenty of other people wear brown shoes...would you be happy with "they're private companies, they can do what they want. Just build your own car"?

It's hypocritical nonsense that shouldn't be allowed. Rules for all or rules for nobody.

You are completely correct, trump should have been banned months, if not years, ago.

Gradius

runawaybishop wrote: »

You are completely correct, trump should have been banned months, if not years, ago.

And if so, all the other nutters should be banned now too, right?

The problem lies in who is deciding what "nutter" constitutes. And when it's a private company that changes only as much as it likes, that's bad news.

Sticking to the one example, the Malaysian prime minister who declared Muslims have a right to behead french people, that went off without a peep. No big deal, definitely not an incitement of violence

Gradius

BobbyMalone wrote: »

Trump wasn't banned for wearing brown shoes, or anything innocuous like that. It was for inciting violence, which was against the t&cs that he agreed to when he signed up.


A better car example would be losing your licence when you use your car to kill someone by hitting them when breaking the speed limit.

Trollocks.

"All Muslims have a right to behead french people", how many bans were handed out for that, and that from a prime minister too?

It's all hyper selective, all about what suits, and that's all that matters to many people.

Gradius

Gradius wrote: »

That's all grand, but what about the Malaysian guy stating that Muslims have a right to kill french people?

Is that message, amplified across the world, LESS dangerous than anything Trump said?

What do you think happened or will happen with that type of thing by way of consequence?

Nothing, that's what. And that's plain hypocrisy and bias.

Whataboutery. That was also very wrong and the ex Malaysian PM should have been banned for it.

It's finally taken a crowd of Trump fanatics for twitter to grow a pair and do the right thing.