|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 11 2022 11:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 11:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 08:58 WombaT wrote:So apparently this is happening and Twitter under Musk is going to reverse the Trump ban Link“I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme,” he said at a Future of the Car event hosted in London by the Financial Times. He added: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake – it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.” He said the decision to ban Mr Trump from Twitter, taken after the 6 January riot at the US Capitol, did not silence the former president’s voice entirely. Rather it amplified his views among people on the political right, Mr Musk said’ I don’t personally think any of this really makes any sense. The rationale anyway. It has no effect in denying him a voice, but amplified the right and alienated the country? At the same time? This is what giving as incoherent a figure as Elon Musk the keys to the kingdom does. Appears Musk was making the straightforward point that attempts at speech suppression are counterproductive. Take Hunter's laptop as an example. You all heard about it loud and clear, even though Twitter and Facebook banned discussion of it on their platforms. That's because the attempts at suppression merely drew more attention towards what they were trying to suppress. Is "they" facebook and twitter in your post? And what were they trying to suppress? You do realize that 99% of the hunter laptop shit was made up BS, that it existed is the only truth, it may have been ham fisted to just get rid of all the laptop stuff, but can you actually give any examples of information that turned out to be true being banned?
Yes Facebook and Twitter and I guess you could say all of the many people who called for it to happen. They were trying to suppress the NY Post and its article about Hunter's laptop.
I've said before I think there's strong evidence of a corruption scheme between Joe & Hunter, to the point that it should be under criminal investigation if it's not already. I won't get into that again though as it would probably bog down the thread
|
"I will not bring up the topic I just brought up"
|
On May 11 2022 13:13 Mohdoo wrote:
"I will not bring up the topic I just brought up"
About the suppressed story that people know about, with evidence that nobody has seen and most likely isn't admissible in court.
|
On May 11 2022 13:13 Mohdoo wrote:
"I will not bring up the topic I just brought up"
I mean I brought up the laptop as a case study in speech suppression attempts backfiring. JimmiC then brought up the actual contents of the laptop and their import. But I've laid out my views in the past anyway.
|
Trying to bring more 'freedom' to Twitter just makes it more likely the government steps in to control hate speech and/or disinformation. If not the US then the EU will likely do so at some point.
If Musk wants to risk that, that's his choice.
|
On May 11 2022 17:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 13:13 Mohdoo wrote:
"I will not bring up the topic I just brought up" I mean I brought up the laptop as a case study in speech suppression attempts backfiring. JimmiC then brought up the actual contents of the laptop and their import. But I've laid out my views in the past anyway.
Whether or not conspiracy theories end up being more popular as a result of someone being banned on social media, social media platforms should still be enforcing their ToS.
|
On May 11 2022 11:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 07:31 Dan HH wrote:Congrats Drone, all the best to you and your family! On May 11 2022 05:51 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 04:59 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 04:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 04:35 Erasme wrote:On May 11 2022 03:04 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 02:08 WombaT wrote:On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied. Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences. On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother. How is the judiciary not doing that in this particular example? Are we going to see past overreaches of the branch expunged en masse? Considering that is the principle at play here? Or will we see Roe vs Wade specifically overturned, by the movement in the composition of the Supreme Court due to nominations by a party whose constituency wants an end to abortion? It strikes me as mightily convenient that the sole ruling on the chopping block under the auspices of judicial overreach happens to be this thing loads of people want to happenZ It's different because by overturning Roe, the SC is not mandating that abortion be legal or illegal (as Roe did). It's simply being left up to the legislative branch, where new laws are debated and created. As for the other rights that the SC has created, like interracial marriage and contraception, I think the SC will basically carve out a somewhat arbitrary exception for abortion and leave those other cases in place. Thus why Alito's opinion explicitly carves those other cases out, even though his reasoning might otherwise extend to them. On May 11 2022 03:01 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied. Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences. On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother. The procedure to "abort" an end-stage fetus is called a c-section and nobody is throwing delivered babies into the blender in the name of completing an abortion. It's a non issue. Everyone agrees that terminating a pregnancy by inducing a viable fetus, delivering it, and then killing it is infanticide. Nobody is doing it. It has no relevance to the discussion of abortion. Abortion relates to non viable fetuses. Not sure I would bet on that proposition. For example there is that former Virginia governor's interview where he explicitly contemplates infanticide. Linking these tweets just for the video: ROFL Are you betting on nobody actually clicking your videos ? They both said the same thing, that this should be left to the mother and the father and maybe the physicians. What an absolute clown world. Just point me where any of them said or contemplated infanticide. And as you're a republican, I want the word "infanticide" since you made that point. Not any other word. Sounds to me like northam was including babies with deformities in his description. He was alluding to ending the baby's life after birth, which is infanticide. Its probably best to not get your facts from facebook memes. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-abortion-idUSKBN27D2HL Funny how the fact checkers had to rely on northam's spokesperson's comment that backpedaled on what he actually said: "he was referring to a 'extremely rare case' of a nonviable pregnancy." Nonviable pregnancies were explicitly a subset of what northam was talking about. Also funny that the actual bill northam was talking about was much, much broader than just "severe deformities or nonviable fetuses" (as stated in the totally unbiased fact check). I really don't like piling in on you when you're already getting so many aggressive replies, but I gotta point something out. I can see how one could uncharitably interpret "severe deformities" (the other part of the set) as something cosmetic rather than life-threatening in that context but there's no point getting into that. Take a step back and re-read the post you replied to with that link. The only acceptable example there would have been someone who wore that belief on their sleeve, never someone who at most may have misspoke. Some days ago when people were talking about the Texas GOP debate on capital punishment for women who get abortions you dismissed the talking point as unfair because it's just a few state legislators of little consequence who won't be able to pass the law, but here's the thing, those state legislators repeatedly, unapologetically and unequivocally made those statements. So that is the absolute minimum bar that you yourself have to clear in the other direction. Well the kwark post I responded to asserted that (1) abortion of end stage fetuses never happens, and (2) infanticide never happens. I cited the two videos as evidence that those two things do sometimes happen. Though I'm guessing there's probably more clear evidence available that in abortion clinics around the country, some things happen that people don't want to admit. And as mentioned I don't think there's a comparison to my previous argument re the random republican legislators. There I was saying it's unlikely the law will be passed, whereas with the northam/ryan videos I was saying that certain things (very late term abortions and infanticide) are already happening. Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 08:59 Erasme wrote:On May 11 2022 07:17 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 06:32 Erasme wrote:On May 11 2022 06:15 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 06:00 Erasme wrote:
Funny how even with two videos you coudln't justify your comments
But hey, i've come to expect this kind of news from republicans. "KRAKEN IS COMING" into absolutly nothing of value. "two governors call for infanticide!!" into "we should let the mothers be informed of their choices by their physicians and then make their own decision"
I didn't even bother fact checking it, just taking your videos at face value show that you're just putting w.e you want into their mouths.
Maybe you can pull a MTG and recant now that you've recalled whats actually in those clips ? You're just making conclusory statements without responding to what I actually said. With a dash of "January 6th" and "Marjorie Taylor Greene" thrown in, because thats relevant i guess. Hey, that was an olive branch as that moment probably was one of the few times she told the truth. You said they're talking about legalizing infanticide, which is your big shtick. I asked you to provid me a timestamp with infanticide. You failed to do that. Now i'm calling you dishonest for posting links with a shitty headline to prove your point, when clearly they don't. I think that's fair. Yes when I say I'm linking tweets for the video only, you should definitely turn around and say I linked them for something other than the video. Btw people don't need to use the word infanticide to talk about infanticide. What ? The procedure to "abort" an end-stage fetus is called a c-section and nobody is throwing delivered babies into the blender in the name of completing an abortion. It's a non issue. Everyone agrees that terminating a pregnancy by inducing a viable fetus, delivering it, and then killing it is infanticide. Nobody is doing it. It has no relevance to the discussion of abortion. Abortion relates to non viable fetuses. You replied to this with the second quote and the two videos. Note that I'm not talking about the tweets themselves.
Not sure I would bet on that proposition. For example there is that former Virginia governor's interview where he explicitly contemplates infanticide.
I then asked you the timestamp when either of those men "explicitly contemplates infanticide" and you couldn't, still can't. So I am calling you dishonest for trying to demonize those two men (and by extension the pro-choice movement), and ask you kindly to not link 30sec soundbites that don't even support your point. Musk is right though, Trump would generate outrage and twitter can cash in on that easily. Looks like I should have seen implicitly rather than explicitly there. Elsewhere I said "alluded to." Point is northam was talking about actions taken after birth.
Sounds to me like he was talking about actions NOT taken after birth. Which is a subtle but important difference when you try to make the (quite frankly ridiculous) argument of infanticide in this case.
|
|
|
Musk will find out that getting banned from the EU is pretty bad for business, so don't expect any drastic changes.
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On May 11 2022 10:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 10:24 WombaT wrote:
His brief statement doesn’t make much sense when the totality of it is joined together. Sure it does: Trump got banned in the heat of the moment of Jan 6th, he found other avenues to speak, and it's certainly not looked upon highly by his supporters. We lose a lot of the day-to-day quips of Trump on Twitter but he's as relevant as he's ever been in the larger sense. I think it's more so that you disagree with the sentiment and think that censoring Trump off of Twitter is justified, which is fine but I don't see why it's hard to follow the logic of the statement. In a similar light, I don't think highly of Musk in general (as most people around here could probably gather) and don't really care for or think that the larger "free speech Twitter" is a good idea. But personally, I tend to agree that the circumstances of the Trump ban were politically motivated and largely not in the best interest of a platform whose only real appeal is that important people make direct comments on there.
Fair, I was especially grumpy. They aren’t especially contradictory and I was wrong, my bad. I was irked at the sight of Elon Musk’s visage.
The salient point for me is was Trump’s ban justified from that particular platform. On balance yes, IMO. Notwithstanding that he would have copped a ban way prior but for political considerations, the lead up to and events of Jan 6th pushed the needle a bit too far.
Whether he finds another platform, or it alienates some people is irrelevant to that, unless we’re talking more widely in terms of the effectiveness of de-platforming, or trying to bridge partisan divides etc. Which I assume Musk probably was from the conversation this was snipped from.
I think a surgeon’s scalpel and steady hand is needed to balance free speech considerations (that vary across locales) with hate speech (some forms of which are illegal in various locales), and veracity of information.
It’s certainly not an easy task, methinks Musk will set aside the scalpel for a sledgehammer with ‘unrestricted free speech’ on it and go to town that way.
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
@Jimmy Biden is at least a 5/10 on corruption, a score I correlate to ‘things that are spiritually corrupt but technically OK’
Trump at 9/10 seems fair, if a tad generous.
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On May 11 2022 17:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 13:13 Mohdoo wrote:
"I will not bring up the topic I just brought up" I mean I brought up the laptop as a case study in speech suppression attempts backfiring. JimmiC then brought up the actual contents of the laptop and their import. But I've laid out my views in the past anyway.
It backfires only because people stubbornly react against any attempts to actually verify or check things.
‘Oh the MSM/Illuminati/Lizard People/WombaT from TL suppressed this story, that means it’s definitely true’
It’s a paradox of the modern age, and it is a pretty specifically modern phenomenon.
If you leave a bogus story on your platform, people will buy the bogus story for its contents. If you remove the bogus story, people will take its removal as tacit proof that said story was true, and they’ll find out the contents elsewhere.
I’m claiming dibs on WombaT’s/Millar’s Law for this phenomenon if it hasn’t already been described by somebody more competent than me
I don’t think this laptop is a good hill to die on, we still are waiting on it’s supposed Biden-torpedoing contents, how much later?
For other stories, I think social media platforms did overstep in scrubbing off legitimate discussion of theories that were plausible, i.e. the lab leak theories etc. Those were theories though they weren’t making explicit claims supposedly backed by evidence.
|
|
|
On May 11 2022 21:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 12:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 11:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 08:58 WombaT wrote:So apparently this is happening and Twitter under Musk is going to reverse the Trump ban Link“I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme,” he said at a Future of the Car event hosted in London by the Financial Times. He added: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake – it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.” He said the decision to ban Mr Trump from Twitter, taken after the 6 January riot at the US Capitol, did not silence the former president’s voice entirely. Rather it amplified his views among people on the political right, Mr Musk said’ I don’t personally think any of this really makes any sense. The rationale anyway. It has no effect in denying him a voice, but amplified the right and alienated the country? At the same time? This is what giving as incoherent a figure as Elon Musk the keys to the kingdom does. Appears Musk was making the straightforward point that attempts at speech suppression are counterproductive. Take Hunter's laptop as an example. You all heard about it loud and clear, even though Twitter and Facebook banned discussion of it on their platforms. That's because the attempts at suppression merely drew more attention towards what they were trying to suppress. Is "they" facebook and twitter in your post? And what were they trying to suppress? You do realize that 99% of the hunter laptop shit was made up BS, that it existed is the only truth, it may have been ham fisted to just get rid of all the laptop stuff, but can you actually give any examples of information that turned out to be true being banned? Yes Facebook and Twitter and I guess you could say all of the many people who called for it to happen. They were trying to suppress the NY Post and its article about Hunter's laptop. I've said before I think there's strong evidence of a corruption scheme between Joe & Hunter, to the point that it should be under criminal investigation if it's not already. I won't get into that again though as it would probably bog down the thread There is not even weak evidence. An email saying the big guy is absolutely nothing. What has happened is all the BS you read you now believe to be true because the laptop exists. Which since your guys had it for over a year and no actual evidence was found should have convinced of the opposite. Nothing was surpressed because nothing existed which is why again you can not bring up any examples. Stop bringing up his laptop like it proves your point in someway, it proves the opposite, that what was banned was made up assumptions all since proven to be false. How many lawsuits ate pending on Biden? If this secret laptop had actual evidence there would be tons, and yet somehow there is none and your guy has tons happenimg at any given time. If there was a corruption meter Trump would be at 9/10 and Biden 1/10 , and yet you apologize away ones behavior and find the others awful, the one way less corrupt to you is worse. Its bonkers. Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 17:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 13:13 Mohdoo wrote:
"I will not bring up the topic I just brought up" I mean I brought up the laptop as a case study in speech suppression attempts backfiring. JimmiC then brought up the actual contents of the laptop and their import. But I've laid out my views in the past anyway. You think people should be able to make up anything without evidence. I know you have a computer could I start typing as fact that you had the worst of the worst on it and drink babies blood? Would you want your friends and family to read that as I wrote it all out over and over with zero evidence? People should be accountable for what they say. Freedom of speech never meant freedom of consequences for what is said.
The evidence is much more than just the big guy email so I'm not sure why you'd pretend that's all. But again that's a difference issue than what was I was addressing by bringing up the laptop.
|
|
|
A few questions for people in this thread who agree with the Alito opinion.
What right, if any, do women have that protects them from a government law that mandates women must conceive and carry to term at least one pregnancy every X years? If none, do you believe that such a mandate is a power the government should have, or should women have a right to not be subjected to this law?
If there is such a right, how does a right that protects women against a mandate to conceive and carry pregnancies to term not also protect against a mandate that all women who conceive carry that pregnancy to term?
|
On May 12 2022 01:04 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 00:34 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 21:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 12:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 11:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 08:58 WombaT wrote:So apparently this is happening and Twitter under Musk is going to reverse the Trump ban Link“I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme,” he said at a Future of the Car event hosted in London by the Financial Times. He added: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake – it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.” He said the decision to ban Mr Trump from Twitter, taken after the 6 January riot at the US Capitol, did not silence the former president’s voice entirely. Rather it amplified his views among people on the political right, Mr Musk said’ I don’t personally think any of this really makes any sense. The rationale anyway. It has no effect in denying him a voice, but amplified the right and alienated the country? At the same time? This is what giving as incoherent a figure as Elon Musk the keys to the kingdom does. Appears Musk was making the straightforward point that attempts at speech suppression are counterproductive. Take Hunter's laptop as an example. You all heard about it loud and clear, even though Twitter and Facebook banned discussion of it on their platforms. That's because the attempts at suppression merely drew more attention towards what they were trying to suppress. Is "they" facebook and twitter in your post? And what were they trying to suppress? You do realize that 99% of the hunter laptop shit was made up BS, that it existed is the only truth, it may have been ham fisted to just get rid of all the laptop stuff, but can you actually give any examples of information that turned out to be true being banned? Yes Facebook and Twitter and I guess you could say all of the many people who called for it to happen. They were trying to suppress the NY Post and its article about Hunter's laptop. I've said before I think there's strong evidence of a corruption scheme between Joe & Hunter, to the point that it should be under criminal investigation if it's not already. I won't get into that again though as it would probably bog down the thread There is not even weak evidence. An email saying the big guy is absolutely nothing. What has happened is all the BS you read you now believe to be true because the laptop exists. Which since your guys had it for over a year and no actual evidence was found should have convinced of the opposite. Nothing was surpressed because nothing existed which is why again you can not bring up any examples. Stop bringing up his laptop like it proves your point in someway, it proves the opposite, that what was banned was made up assumptions all since proven to be false. How many lawsuits ate pending on Biden? If this secret laptop had actual evidence there would be tons, and yet somehow there is none and your guy has tons happenimg at any given time. If there was a corruption meter Trump would be at 9/10 and Biden 1/10 , and yet you apologize away ones behavior and find the others awful, the one way less corrupt to you is worse. Its bonkers. On May 11 2022 17:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 13:13 Mohdoo wrote:
"I will not bring up the topic I just brought up" I mean I brought up the laptop as a case study in speech suppression attempts backfiring. JimmiC then brought up the actual contents of the laptop and their import. But I've laid out my views in the past anyway. You think people should be able to make up anything without evidence. I know you have a computer could I start typing as fact that you had the worst of the worst on it and drink babies blood? Would you want your friends and family to read that as I wrote it all out over and over with zero evidence? People should be accountable for what they say. Freedom of speech never meant freedom of consequences for what is said. The evidence is much more than just the big guy email so I'm not sure why you'd pretend that's all. But again that's a difference issue than what was I was addressing by bringing up the laptop. Then post it, because so far you have just posted the post article which has the big guy and whole bunch of assumptions. Your genius Giuliani had it for over a year and couldn't find anything, the FBI has found nothing. It is time to stop living in fantasy world. edit: as asked of you multiple times, show do not tell. Show the evidence, show the banned posts that are actually true. Prove something.
I've posted the evidence in bullet point form with links, I guess I could dig up the post if you really want. Your response then was to demand documentary proof of money moving between hunter and Joe's bank accounts. In other words, you demanded evidence that's 99% of the way to being perfect proof, as opposes to what I offered which gets us about 70-80% of the way. The takeaway is that you're defending Biden tooth and nail because he's your guy and he's not trump.
|
So if there’s nothing more to discuss on the topic maybe it makes sense to not discuss it again
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On May 12 2022 03:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 01:04 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 00:34 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 21:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 12:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 11:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 08:58 WombaT wrote:So apparently this is happening and Twitter under Musk is going to reverse the Trump ban Link“I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme,” he said at a Future of the Car event hosted in London by the Financial Times. He added: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake – it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.” He said the decision to ban Mr Trump from Twitter, taken after the 6 January riot at the US Capitol, did not silence the former president’s voice entirely. Rather it amplified his views among people on the political right, Mr Musk said’ I don’t personally think any of this really makes any sense. The rationale anyway. It has no effect in denying him a voice, but amplified the right and alienated the country? At the same time? This is what giving as incoherent a figure as Elon Musk the keys to the kingdom does. Appears Musk was making the straightforward point that attempts at speech suppression are counterproductive. Take Hunter's laptop as an example. You all heard about it loud and clear, even though Twitter and Facebook banned discussion of it on their platforms. That's because the attempts at suppression merely drew more attention towards what they were trying to suppress. Is "they" facebook and twitter in your post? And what were they trying to suppress? You do realize that 99% of the hunter laptop shit was made up BS, that it existed is the only truth, it may have been ham fisted to just get rid of all the laptop stuff, but can you actually give any examples of information that turned out to be true being banned? Yes Facebook and Twitter and I guess you could say all of the many people who called for it to happen. They were trying to suppress the NY Post and its article about Hunter's laptop. I've said before I think there's strong evidence of a corruption scheme between Joe & Hunter, to the point that it should be under criminal investigation if it's not already. I won't get into that again though as it would probably bog down the thread There is not even weak evidence. An email saying the big guy is absolutely nothing. What has happened is all the BS you read you now believe to be true because the laptop exists. Which since your guys had it for over a year and no actual evidence was found should have convinced of the opposite. Nothing was surpressed because nothing existed which is why again you can not bring up any examples. Stop bringing up his laptop like it proves your point in someway, it proves the opposite, that what was banned was made up assumptions all since proven to be false. How many lawsuits ate pending on Biden? If this secret laptop had actual evidence there would be tons, and yet somehow there is none and your guy has tons happenimg at any given time. If there was a corruption meter Trump would be at 9/10 and Biden 1/10 , and yet you apologize away ones behavior and find the others awful, the one way less corrupt to you is worse. Its bonkers. On May 11 2022 17:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 13:13 Mohdoo wrote:
"I will not bring up the topic I just brought up" I mean I brought up the laptop as a case study in speech suppression attempts backfiring. JimmiC then brought up the actual contents of the laptop and their import. But I've laid out my views in the past anyway. You think people should be able to make up anything without evidence. I know you have a computer could I start typing as fact that you had the worst of the worst on it and drink babies blood? Would you want your friends and family to read that as I wrote it all out over and over with zero evidence? People should be accountable for what they say. Freedom of speech never meant freedom of consequences for what is said. The evidence is much more than just the big guy email so I'm not sure why you'd pretend that's all. But again that's a difference issue than what was I was addressing by bringing up the laptop. Then post it, because so far you have just posted the post article which has the big guy and whole bunch of assumptions. Your genius Giuliani had it for over a year and couldn't find anything, the FBI has found nothing. It is time to stop living in fantasy world. edit: as asked of you multiple times, show do not tell. Show the evidence, show the banned posts that are actually true. Prove something. I've posted the evidence in bullet point form with links, I guess I could dig up the post if you really want. Your response then was to demand documentary proof of money moving between hunter and Joe's bank accounts. In other words, you demanded evidence that's 99% of the way to being perfect proof, as opposes to what I offered which gets us about 70-80% of the way. The takeaway is that you're defending Biden tooth and nail because he's your guy and he's not trump.
Evidence that supposedly exists, where is it?
I’d honestly give more credence to ‘Hunter did x but we can’t find the smoking gun’ than this shitshow. Smoking guns don’t grow on trees, if one can’t find one you might still have sufficient circumstantial evidence to grow a reasonable plausible theory tree.
It’s a complete bloody farce, Biden isn’t exactly beloved in these parts, defending him tooth and nail isn’t behaviour exhibited too often.
It’s a desperate reach to have some dirt on the other guy to assuage one’s conscience pangs for tolerating and playing Devil’s advocate for Trump’s rampant provable, endemic corruption, it’s all it really is, it’s pretty transparent.
Rather than do a modicum of soul searching over the grotesque political entity they’ve helped birth through an abdication of basic moral standards, they’ll cling desperately to scraps that put someone else on the firing line so they can say ‘both sides do it’
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
