Political Thread XX

[Katphood]

Would be nice if twitter ever decided to ban Trump.

[Guard Dog]

OK, once again being kicked off twitter, the Obsidian Board, Facebook, etc. does not really stretch to making someone an unperson. 

 

I've been given lifetime bans from Free Republic & Democrat Underground. I didn't disappear and I still post on the web.

[Orogun01]

OK, once again being kicked off twitter, the Obsidian Board, Facebook, etc. does not really stretch to making someone an unperson. 

 

I've been given lifetime bans from Free Republic & Democrat Underground. I didn't disappear and I still post on the web.

It does stifle debate when the opposition is kicked off the forum

[Guard Dog]

 

OK, once again being kicked off twitter, the Obsidian Board, Facebook, etc. does not really stretch to making someone an unperson. 

 

I've been given lifetime bans from Free Republic & Democrat Underground. I didn't disappear and I still post on the web.

It does stifle debate when the opposition is kicked off the forum

 

Certainly. But if the forum decides it does not want debate, well it is their forum. Sharp One is equating censorship by a government entity and a private entity trying to turn itself into a left wing echo chamber. They really are not the same things.  

[Malcador]

What would be the solution, anyway? Make it illegal to ban anyone from social media?

[Volourn]

Yes. And, no. It's complex.

 

 

But, this is justa  reminder that  99.9% don't believe in free speech or freedom. They only pretend to. This goes for BOTH SIDES.

[Orogun01]

 

 

OK, once again being kicked off twitter, the Obsidian Board, Facebook, etc. does not really stretch to making someone an unperson. 

 

I've been given lifetime bans from Free Republic & Democrat Underground. I didn't disappear and I still post on the web.

It does stifle debate when the opposition is kicked off the forum

 

Certainly. But if the forum decides it does not want debate, well it is their forum. Sharp One is equating censorship by a government entity and a private entity trying to turn itself into a left wing echo chamber. They really are not the same things.  

 

Private entities have been cooperative with the government in hiding and manipulating information. Indirect censorship is still censorship; plus if a Christian bakery is forced to bake a gay cake in the name of Freedom of Speech, Twitter and Facebook can put up with some right wing nutjobs on their platform.

[Elerond]

If you get banned from twitter because of right wing views, you probably did something quite idiotic as twitter's CEO is conservative with quite right wing views, who is part of Trump's advisory council and who more likelly defends conservatives who break twitter's TOS than bans them.

 

 

EDIT: Please, remind me were people concerned about censorship when government forced Twitter huntdown and close twitter accounts which spread ISIS's propaganda

 

 

Gavin McInnes seems to such nice person that one has to wonder how it is possible that he got his account suspended

 

 

https://twitter.com/andrewkimmel/status/1028121142702133248

 

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by Elerond

[Agiel]

 

In light of Mattis' earlier opposition to the prospect, I can't help but think Mad Dog is still saying in a deep, mournful Goliath voice "Gee... I don't know, Donnie."

Edited August 12, 2018 by Agiel

[SonicMage117]

When I see lefty extremists getting banned (more often than right extemists), it's due to the the cause that they still can't accept Trump IS our president, even now. And it's not harsh banning people permanently for threatening another person's life because they can't take opposotion from the opposite side of political parties. You all see - or don't you? That usually the convo escalates from a simple disagreement to threats and petty insults/trolling, all enough reason to ban really. Some people also have a hard time accepting that bullying is bullying.

 

There seems to be a self-pitying jistification now days that people use to excuse their childish antics/behaviors "He did this so I have the right to do this back". The ones I witness the most are on YouTube comments section and that's sayong something since it only has global moderators vs local ones. I mean, it's not like anyone's "informative" comments are going to change any minds of the people who come across and read them, nor the person they argue with lol I can see that one person in the world who will tell them "Okay, you win. I'll change my side" just so the other person could finally shut up and they'd be naive to believe they actually impacted someone else's view. Political convos on social media direct are the worst because both sides are trying to prove something and nobody really knows what they're talking about. My higher intellect allows me to avoid the bs in such things. I keep crying for people to awaken but...

 

In the end, this usually isn't a power hungry mod thing or even a "I offended a moderator, pushed their buttons" thing but rather a "The mods are smart enough to measure the fine line between freedom of speech and abuse of that freedom rather being a derivative of online conjuncture or conflict of another's freedom". Even if we don't see why there's good reason for it, sometimes it's best to disable the fued before it goes forward. Some situations are easier to project than others, thus... Life, finds a way.

 

(Quote forthcoming)

 

 

 

Anyways,

 

There's a reason why Feinstein was an easy target for Chinese intelligence lmao

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/diane-feinstein-easy-mark-chinese-intelligence

[ktchong]

The second anniversary "Unite the Right" rally was a total bust.  It was... pathetic. 

 

Fewer than fifty people - conservatives, alt-right, far-right, neo-Nazi, White nationalists, whatever you want to call them - showed up to support the rally.    Let me repeat: fewer than 50 supporters showed up for the "Unite the Right" rally.

 

On the other hand and on the other side, thousands of counter-protestors showed up.   Seriously, next year's "Unite the Right" rally (if there is one) should be renamed to "Save the Right" rally.  The right is not "united".  They are scattered like rats running away from a sinking ship.

 

 

 

 

News inks:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/12/us/unite-the-right-charlottesville-anniversary/index.html

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/unite-the-right-rally-dc-2018-08-12-live-updates/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/washington-readies-for-todays-planned-white-supremacist-rally-near-white-house/2018/08/12/551720c4-9c28-11e8-8d5e-c6c594024954_story.html

Edited August 13, 2018 by ktchong

[smjjames]

You mean 'trigger the left', not the right.

[SonicMage117]

I mean, with the current President being a righter and a so-called "racist", they're isn't really a need for them to try to convince anyone of anything so I can understand why barely anyone would show up - those bozos already won the war, there's no benefit to gathering now, especially when the next presidential election is still far off. As someone else pointed out already, the senate elections don't really matter, neither does any rally. This is just a "Call to freedom of speech" and nothing more, I think wherein the confusion lays is that people think that if you're at a rally, you care about your voice being heard, or that you're intelligently supportimg your cause by going and being on the frontline. Problem is that there are smarter ways to do it, and in much quiter fashions.

 

And yes, people thrive on drama and negativity. Let me guess, they spent all night making fun of the President's tiny hands and talking about how they wish they could assassinate him? They are angry, which gives them more of a motivation to stand up (or take a knee). This shouldn't surprise anyone. Maybe IF the democrats win the next election, we'll see the opposite happen - although I'm guessing that the people who are criticizing will reverse their roles and say something like "Oh look at those nazis, look at them come out of the woodwork since they lost and are whining, how pathetic that thousands of them are gathering and for what? Fo they actually think they'll accomplish anything?" In the same vain that the leftists meetings are accomplishing exactly nothing right now.

 

What was said at the rally that makes you think the right was triggered? As far as I'm aware, the leftist has always had more triggered performances.

 

 

Just look at those triggered baffoons, it's truly baffling lol Both sides are funny and entertaining, both sides are the same when it comes down and ultimately achieving the same goals through different means. The country will progress in it's own way, people will never truly have the power and nobody, not one whole side will ever be 100% happy so rallies are deemed pointless. Especially since the worst of the country is far behind us.

Edited August 13, 2018 by SonicMage117

[smjjames]

If you consider protesting being triggered, then you're the snowflake. Also, theres no sound other than music, maybe the video author is deliberately hiding something because he got triggered?

 

The captions (which just keep saying music and applause) are in spanish for some odd reason. Theres also a few odd bits of text from the captions, but the captions aren't working for some reason.

 

Though if you mean the big banner, I'm sure conservative protests (NOT far-right) have similar out there language.

 

 

What was said at the rally that makes you think the right was triggered? As far as I'm aware, the leftist has always had more triggered performances.
 

 

They changed that part of their post.

Edited August 13, 2018 by smjjames

[ktchong]

I mean, with the current President being a righter and a so-called "racist", they're isn't really a need for them to try to convince anyone of anything so I can understand why barely anyone would show up...

 

 

We had the same President a year ago when the first Unite the Right rally happened. 

[BruceVC]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/10/omarosa-trump-book-the-apprentice-memoir

 

So another one of  Trumps previous Political  policy sycophants has written a book about her time in the White House 

 

Apparently Omarosa claims Trump is both racist and a misogynist ...but why did she work for him if she knew all this? I question her overall credibility 

[SonicMage117]

The answer is simple:

 

She didn't leave because the President wasn't a racist or misogynist. She left because she didn't get something she wanted or was offended by something small, hardly worth mentioning and split. That said, she most likely regrets leaving, isn't making enough money now, so a cash-grab was born, one that naive people will buy - especially women who buy what they want to hear. As said before, people live drama. Would it sell well if it said good things about our President? Of course not lol

 

 

 

And more importantly I always found it funny when people say Trump hates women or is anti-women. Considering, he has pressed women to be further than men in a positive way - which can be seen from Sanders being his press secretary, Hicks left the white house and still speaks highly of Trump, the list goes on, the President has always given women equal opportunity ajd this goes well way before he was elected. So the fact that there are more women that have had a positive experience with the President makes things even more cringe-worthy.

 

 

Let's see here, one thing I did notice pop up on the YouTube is slamming the President for his sexual mindset on women and his preference of their appearance, which shows you how desperate people are to create dirt. I mean, all men who are attracted to women tend to more or less think the same, our President is just louder and honest/outspoken about it. I'm not sure when such a thing became a crime, maybe when the #MeToo movement came to fruition and deemed that a man who whistles at a woman walking down the street be labeled as sexual assault

 

We even have these videos made by casual leftists and extreme leftists alike, floating around on Youtube lol

 

 

Tada! We can't really believe everything we read/hear/see, even from people who worked for Trump or some Alternative Facts First Network... Or I mean Real Facts First Network. They've proven that time and time again.

 

Cash grabs, Clicks, and View Counts. That's what everything is about today. Integrity and credibility are long lost and we have ignorant people that love to be fed into the lies. *Shrug* Whatever makes them feel better about themselves, I guess.

Edited August 13, 2018 by SonicMage117

[Tagaziel]

I'm not sure you need to invent dirt on a guy who's on record gloating how he can grab women "by the ****" and get away with it thanks to his celebrity status, but that's just me.

 

But hey, I agree, integrity and credibility are a thing of the past, particularly for the current US administration, what with clearing asbestos for construction use again. I was actually surprised that the US doesn't have a wholesale ban on a known carcinogen, but I guess the courts know better:

 

http://www.asbestosnation.org/facts/why-isnt-asbestos-banned-in-the-united-states/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/climate/epa-asbestos-rule.html

 

But seriously:

 

Asked why the rule specified 15 uses instead of applying to all prospective uses, Ms. Beck said the agency was confident it had included all foreseeable uses of asbestos. “We think we have identified all of the potential possible uses that are out there and could come back into manufacturing,” Ms. Beck said. “The universe is covered.”

[Guard Dog]

Asbestos is only dangerous when damaged and improperly handled. The illnesses that resulted from that came before the hazards were really known. It's not being used in new construction. But to retroactively remove it from every building built between the 1920's and 2000's would be impossible.

[Chilloutman]

Asbestos is only dangerous when damaged and improperly handled. The illnesses that resulted from that came before the hazards were really known. It's not being used in new construction. But to retroactively remove it from every building built between the 1920's and 2000's would be impossible.

 

Its not, we have done it, everyone with sense done that. I mean you don't have to do it all at once but all buildings needs maintenance, when this happens you should replace it. And in some cases do it at once - IE hospitals, schools etc.

[Tagaziel]

Last I remember, inevitable weathering due to age and environmental factors counted as damage, especially where asbestos is concerned, but I guess I'm just a dumb, Trump-hating leftist.

[Gfted1]

Its not, we have done it, everyone with sense done that. I mean you don't have to do it all at once but all buildings needs maintenance, when this happens you should replace it. And in some cases do it at once - IE hospitals, schools etc.

It is already the law to abate dangerous products (asbestos, lead, etc.) when you come across them during any building renovation.

 

Here you go Tagaziel: What is Asbestos?

[Azdeus]

 

Asbestos is only dangerous when damaged and improperly handled. The illnesses that resulted from that came before the hazards were really known. It's not being used in new construction. But to retroactively remove it from every building built between the 1920's and 2000's would be impossible.

 

Its not, we have done it, everyone with sense done that. I mean you don't have to do it all at once but all buildings needs maintenance, when this happens you should replace it. And in some cases do it at once - IE hospitals, schools etc.

 

 

It's been actively done here aswell, so, yeah.

[Chilloutman]

Hilarious:

 

 

from comment section:

 

"When Mars sends its demons, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending demons that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing destruction. They're bringing crime. They're hell-spawn. And some, I assume, are good demons." - Doomguy, 2018

Edited August 13, 2018 by Chilloutman

[Malcador]

Almost wish these dudes wrote transcripts.