The Donald Trump thread

rainy

Woodpecker
That social media is censoring to this extent at this time is a complete failure of the Trump admin. They've had four years to go after these tech monopolies yet here we are on the eve of the election and they're censoring whatever the hell they want to censor.
 

DanielH

Woodpecker
Translation: Please, you people on the right, play by Marquess of Queensbury rules while the left sucker punches you and in bad faith goes after your platform, your bank, your ISP...whatever gets them traction to snuff out your ability to speak. I don't know if altering 230 would fix the problem, but what a classic case of another Cato style libertarian (460K followers) pushing surrender.

Justin Amash kinda sounds like a pedophile. I'm not saying he is one, but that line of argumentation is in line with what a pedophile theoretically would say. Actually let me check my thesaurus real quick... oh, one of the synonyms for pedophile is libertarian. Cool.
 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member
That social media is censoring to this extent at this time is a complete failure of the Trump admin. They've had four years to go after these tech monopolies yet here we are on the eve of the election and they're censoring whatever the hell they want to censor.

It has been rather slow & rather gradual. That's for sure.
Yet from a slightly different perspective.

The political narrative has shifted from pending Trump impeachments & Mueller investigations back in ~2018, to active media exposure of Obama / Clinton / Biden corruption & crimes.

From here. Does the shift continue in Trump's favour or does the pendulum swing back?
At face value.
Trump is in a good mood & on the front foot.
While ballot fraud aside, I can't foresee a Biden victory at all.
 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member
As per the NBA's lost audience.
Makes you wonder how these supposedly capitalist corporations can prosper, when their woke nature will always make them broke?

Unless outside funding from sinister elements such as Soros & the Sino's is what props them up. Or in Twitter's case, it may well be a Qatari prince or two.

 
Fire Barr right now.

Rudy for AG.




This is discussed in the video around the 5 min mark:



There was ZERO way to spin this so Big Tech had a panic attack and decided to go full retard and shut down anything and anyone who dared to utter a thought about this subject.

They dun messed up reaaaaaaal good now. The best quote I've seen on all this is:

"What did Joe Biden know and when did he forget it?"
 
Last edited:

Uprising

Woodpecker
Has anyone heard anything about whether Trump will declare it unlawful for employers, financial institutions, places of business and education to discriminate against Americans who don't want to take the inevitable COVID vaccine?

Or is he going to leave it up to the states to decide?

In the very least, has Trump said anything about it being unlawful to discriminate against people who don't want COVID tracking apps or chips or anything like that?

I'm asking because the only thing I've heard Trump say is that a vaccine is coming soon and he seemed to be very happy about that. That's not a very positive sign for people who don't want to take that vaccine every single year..........
 
Has anyone heard anything about whether Trump will declare it unlawful for employers, financial institutions, places of business and education to discriminate against Americans who don't want to take the inevitable COVID vaccine?

Or is he going to leave it up to the states to decide?

In the very least, has Trump said anything about it being unlawful to discriminate against people who don't want COVID tracking apps or chips or anything like that?

I'm asking because the only thing I've heard Trump say is that a vaccine is coming soon and he seemed to be very happy about that. That's not a very positive sign for people who don't want to take that vaccine every single year..........

Hopefully he is only running his mouth here. I can't imagine a forced vaccine being popular with his supporters. I voted for him, but I don't necessarily agree with every dumbass idea that flows from his mouth. This is one of them. Especially since 99.6% of those who have it live.
 

EndlessGravity

Kingfisher
Don't forget, it was Barr's father who hired an unqualified (no Bachelor's degree) 20 year old Jeffrey Epstein to teach Junior High math students and give him his first career job in the USA.

I agree fire Barr now.

You've repeated this a few times, very bluntly, as if you have an ax to grind. So I was a little suspicious.

Barr was pushed out of the school 7-months before Epstein was hired and very unsurprisingly, Epstein had a habit of faking his credentials, though he attended NYU's institution for mathematics. Barr's school had also recently lost 4 math teachers.

Was he a perv? Seems like it. Was there some sort of conspiracy? Doubtful. Epstein probably took advantage of that time in the 70s to worm his way into somewhere where he was developing connections, whether through Barr or anyone else, since it appears to have been something he liked to do.

TOTALLY BREAKING NEWS: creepy dude who used high-society connections is loosely connected to high-society people.

Reference:
 
You've repeated this a few times, very bluntly, as if you have an ax to grind. So I was a little suspicious.

Barr was pushed out of the school 7-months before Epstein was hired and very unsurprisingly, Epstein had a habit of faking his credentials, though he attended NYU's institution for mathematics. Barr's school had also recently lost 4 math teachers.

Was he a perv? Seems like it. Was there some sort of conspiracy? Doubtful. Epstein probably took advantage of that time in the 70s to worm his way into somewhere where he was developing connections, whether through Barr or anyone else, since it appears to have been something he liked to do.

TOTALLY BREAKING NEWS: creepy dude who used high-society connections is loosely connected to high-society people.

Reference:

Great share. I think the real question is did Epstein has to worm his way into somewhere (self made) or was that setup for him by Mossad from the get go?

I don't think we will ever know.
 

budoslavic

Peacock
Gold Member



Justice Clarence Thomas: Section 230 Protections for Big Tech Are Too Broad

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) is applied too broadly to social media companies in a recent letter. The law, which was passed at the beginning of the dot-com era, allows internet companies to avoid liability for content that has been posted by users on their platform. According to Thomas, “many courts have construed the law broadly to confer sweeping immunity on some of the largest companies in the world.”

According to a report by Axios, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that Section 230 of the CDA should be narrowed. Section 230 grants broad legal protections to social media companies with regard to content posted by users.

In a statement issued in response to a petition for writ of certiorari, Justice Thomas argued that Section 230 declares that social media platforms are not “publishers,” which means that they cannot be held liable for content posted by their users. Some industry analysts have suggested that platforms should be responsible for certain content on their platform, and for the censorship of content from their platforms, an act that makes them a publisher instead of a platform.

Enacted at the dawn of the dot-com era, §230 contains two subsections that protect computer service providers from some civil and criminal claims. The first is definitional. It states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” §230(c)(1). This provision ensures that a company (like an e-mail provider) can host and transmit thirdparty content without subjecting itself to the liability that sometimes attaches to the publisher or speaker of unlawful content.

Justice Thomas went on to argue that many courts around the nation have construed the law too broadly, offering liability protection to some of the most powerful companies in the world.

“When Congress enacted the statute, most of today’s major Internet platforms did not exist. And in the 24 years since, we have never interpreted this provision,” Justice Thomas wrote. “But many courts have construed the law broadly to confer sweeping immunity on some of the largest companies in the world.”

Breitbart News reported in June that the Department of Justice was preparing a proposal that would repeal Section 230 of the CDA. A reversal would likely have a major impact on popular social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.

 
Top