North Korea and US politics

[vorcirion]

I must admit I don't like these fact checker sites, they have an inherent liberal bias, the old saying there are 'lies, damned lies and statistics' comes to mind, we never needed fact checking newspapers pre the internet or even these websites for the first 20 years of the internet.

Imagine we had the same situation on here, with a big marking on a post, saying please refer to this fact checker if you read this post, it would be silly and a blatant form of thought control.

If trump is going to take action against twitter and facebook he will get applauded by many who are getting sick and tired of tech companies interfering in politics for one side. [esp when they have a monopoly, google should never been allowed to buy youtube, just concentrates too much power into one company's hands]

[ All over this scarborough story too, more soap opera issues that will not affect people's lives one jot, got to laugh really trump and his battles with the media ]

Can you name any president from any country who has lied as much as Trump has? With these kind of presidents you really need fact checking 'cause they put people's lives in danger.
It wouldn't be responsible for media just to report what Trump says and let people think whatever they want from that. If someone lies and the media knows it...they need to tell it. Media's role should be informing people and not spreading propaganda.

 

[vorcirion]

trump has more enemies than I've ever known a modern day politician to have, more battles, he's fought republicans in jeb etc..hillary, the deep state, tv shows, actors, comedians, the list goes on and on

He's got old rudy, joe digenova and his wife plus lou dobbs fighting his corner, it's like a mad pantomime that never ends.

In this there's only right and wrong side of things. Whoever defends Trump in this is a shitty person imo. Similar to attacking McCain AFTER he had died already. Or attacking Khan's family. It's just disgusting behaviour.

 

[mack341]

Can you name any president from any country who has lied as much as Trump has? With these kind of presidents you really need fact checking 'cause they put people's lives in danger.
It wouldn't be responsible for media just to report what Trump says and let people think whatever they want from that. If someone lies and the media knows it...they need to tell it. Media's role should be informing people and not spreading propaganda.

Yes but just do it within an article, I noticed them appearing in the brexit run up, they are so blatant the way they are worded as well, not even pretending to be neutral, like having the bbc on steroids. It's a sign of the liberal establishment losing the arguments and so using these sites to back up their positions.

I don't have a problem with Trump being exposed as lying or making mistakes, that's what journalists are there for, to hold power to account, but they waste time on silly things like attacking him for playing a round of golf, when exercise and relaxation are important for everyone's health.

I don't think I've heard one issue the msm have raised that relates to everybody's day to day life, it's always about russia or ukraine, some past poor taste comments etc...If they had spent as much time on the healthcare issue as russia then positive changes may have come about, but no that's too boring and about real life.

 

[ladyhawke]

[…]
Imagine we had the same situation on here, with a big marking on a post, saying please refer to this fact checker if you read this post, it would be silly and a blatant form of thought control.

That is the most absurd response I have ever read.

What you appear to be suggesting is that someone can twist facts, cast malicious slurs, lie with impunity, and should never be called to account.

The fact that Trump was allowed to say whatever he wanted in the first place, and the tweets still remain is surely a prime example of free speech.

The fact-check marker is only a suggestion made by Twitter. It is not compulsory to obey.

Many people will believe the content of the tweet without bothering to consult the fact-checker. Many others will read the fact-checker and either believe it unequivocally, or follow it up with further research of their own, or disregard it as being malicious and believe the content of the original tweet without further consideration.

The existence of a fact-checker marker gives everyone a choice, but you are implying that we should not be allowed this particular avenue to confirm what is being tweeted is accurate, and thus make up our own minds, as this is a 'blatant form of thought control'.

What absolute rubbish.

What is a 'blatant form of thought control' are the misleading, lying comments Trump tweeted in the first place, just because he could.

 

[mack341]

In this there's only right and wrong side of things. Whoever defends Trump in this is a shitty person imo. Similar to attacking McCain AFTER he had died already. Or attacking Khan's family. It's just disgusting behaviour.

I must have forgotten this, khan?

 

[mack341]

That is the most absurd response I have ever read.

What you appear to be suggesting is that someone can twist facts, cast malicious slurs, lie with impunity, and should never be called to account.

The fact that Trump was allowed to say whatever he wanted in the first place, and the tweets still remain is surely a prime example of free speech.

The fact-check marker is only a suggestion made by Twitter. It is not compulsory to obey.

Many people will believe the content of the tweet without bothering to consult the fact-checker. Many others will read the fact-checker and either believe it unequivocally, or follow it up with further research of their own, or disregard it as being malicious and believe the content of the original tweet without further consideration.

The existence of a fact-checker marker gives everyone a choice, but you are implying that we should not be allowed this particular avenue to confirm what is being tweeted is accurate, and thus make up our own minds, as this is a 'blatant form of thought control'.

What absolute rubbish.

What is a 'blatant form of thought control' are the misleading, lying comments Trump tweeted in the first place, just because he could.

Why do you want to nanny everyone, to make them conform to your views and outlook on life?

Are people so retarded they can't go and look something up now, they need to be handheld and taken to the msm's 'fact checker site'

And how can you fact check someone's opinion, are you so naive to think govt's never get anything wrong, what would a fact checker have said prior to the 2nd gulf war about weapons of mass destruction, they would have damn well said there is strong evidence they exist, years later the public find out it was all BS.

edit: I'm sorry if the above sounds harsh but that is what I am picking up, the end result is we will have no debate, it's shrinking as it is. I don't mind someone challenging trump, that's the role for a journalist or writer, but not these robotic sites, it's the approach the russians and soviet style countries would embrace. The thin end of the wedge of orwellian.

 

[vorcirion]

I must have forgotten this, khan?

I know you like wikipedia so here you go! But it's accurate at least.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

They didn't like Trump's muslim ban proposal and criticized him over it. Then Trump basically suggested that maybe mr. Khan didn't let mrs. Khan to speak 'cause of religion or whatever.

 

[dionysus]

 

[mack341]

That is the most absurd response I have ever read.

Many people will believe the content of the tweet without bothering to consult the fact-checker. Many others will read the fact-checker and either believe it unequivocally, or follow it up with further research of their own, or disregard it as being malicious and believe the content of the original tweet without further consideration.

I think just to add, impying joe scarborough a major tv host had murdered his former personal assistant, will not be taken at face value by readers of trump's tweet, surely?

Going on the kind of posts trump makes, the fact checkers are going to have a busy job and his feed littered with fact checker links.

what next boris johnson, the queen, they are all capable of telling porkies; another thing trump was cleared of colluding with russia [no evidence was found] but will twitter go round adding a fact checker link to every post [even just the notable accounts of pundits and journalist, bloggers etc..] accusing donald of collusion? No they won't, I'm 100% certain they will never do that, but if they are consistent and not biased they would.

 

[sufferinsilence]

I think just to add, impying joe scarborough a major tv host had murdered his former personal assistant, will not be taken at face value by readers of trump's tweet, surely?

Going on the kind of posts trump makes, the fact checkers are going to have a busy job and his feed littered with fact checker links.

what next boris johnson, the queen, they are all capable of telling porkies; another thing trump was cleared of colluding with russia [no evidence was found] but will twitter go round adding a fact checker link to every post [even just the notable accounts of pundits and journalist, bloggers etc..] accusing donald of collusion? No they won't, I'm 100% certain they will never do that, but if they are consistent and not biased they would.

Sadly alot of people take what Trump says at face value.

Anyway, the tweets that were flagged were about fraud with mail-in ballots. The funny part about that is his whole family used mail-in ballots in 2016.

 

[ladyhawke]

Why do you want to nanny everyone, to make them conform to your views and outlook on life?

Huh? You are beginning to be like Trump. Distorting things to conform to your own agenda, as my post suggests nothing of the sort.

Are people so retarded they can't go and look something up now, they need to be handheld and taken to the msm's 'fact checker site'

Why would people think of fact-checking something when the American President tweets all sorts of meaningless rubbish as if it is based on fact? Which is similar to what you do yourself, as you support Trump almost unreservedly, no matter what he says or does. So one can only assume that you fit your own description above.

And how can you fact check someone's opinion, are you so naive to think govt's never get anything wrong, what would a fact checker have said prior to the 2nd gulf war about weapons of mass destruction, they would have damn well said there is strong evidence they exist, years later the public find out it was all BS.

That, regrettably, will always be the case. But there is no comparison to the way Trump operates. His tweets only have one aim, and that is to belittle, denigrate and divide.

edit: I'm sorry if the above sounds harsh but that is what I am picking up, the end result is we will have no debate, it's shrinking as it is. I don't mind someone challenging trump, that's the role for a journalist or writer, but not these robotic sites, it's the approach the russians and soviet style countries would embrace. The thin end of the wedge of orwellian.

The robotic sites that allow Trump free reign regarding free speech? Your arguments are beginning to sound spurious in the extreme.

I think just to add, impying joe scarborough a major tv host had murdered his former personal assistant, will not be taken at face value by readers of trump's tweet, surely?

Surely you are not that naïve?

Going on the kind of posts trump makes, the fact checkers are going to have a busy job and his feed littered with fact checker links.

As it should be, when he libels people by lying without thought and spreads conspiracy theories as if they are the truth.

In fact, anyone who follows his MO should also have their tweets subjected to fact-checking. Otherwise you will allow lies and deflection a platform to eventually destroy integrity and honesty.

what next boris johnson, the queen, they are all capable of telling porkies; another thing trump was cleared of colluding with russia [no evidence was found] but will twitter go round adding a fact checker link to every post [even just the notable accounts of pundits and journalist, bloggers etc..] accusing donald of collusion? No they won't, I'm 100% certain they will never do that, but if they are consistent and not biased they would.

Oh FFS. That really is reaching.

Sadly alot of people take what Trump says at face value.

>>>THIS!!! I rest my case.

 

[Harry_BKK]

So...after suffering the indignity of being fact-checked by Twitter, this is Trump's response:

Trump will sign an executive order on social media companies: White House spokeswoman

Apparently this EO is going to "strongly regulate" or "close down" Social Media platforms.

Is he not trying to undermine the fundamental principle of free speech with this action, as Twitter did not ban his tweet, but simply flagged them with the fact-checker marker. So he is still able to make his ludicrous, unhinged claims, which surely is free speech at its 'finest'.

An interesting question is: Can an Executive Order like this one be issued against private companies?

Hello!!!

Free Speech means you are "Free to speak when you praise the Chosen One to the moon and back!"

To answer your question: No but he could squeeze the authority (FCC or something) to declare Twitter a publisher as editing content is considered publishing.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I think just to add, impying joe scarborough a major tv host had murdered his former personal assistant, will not be taken at face value by readers of trump's tweet, surely?

Going on the kind of posts trump makes, the fact checkers are going to have a busy job and his feed littered with fact checker links.

what next boris johnson, the queen, they are all capable of telling porkies; another thing trump was cleared of colluding with russia [no evidence was found] but will twitter go round adding a fact checker link to every post [even just the notable accounts of pundits and journalist, bloggers etc..] accusing donald of collusion? No they won't, I'm 100% certain they will never do that, but if they are consistent and not biased they would.

Mate, you seem to be either losing the plot or falling in love with Mr T.

The outrage about the Scarborough thing is not so much about Scarborough but the family (parents, husband, etc) of that woman who died. For nearly 20 years, they were never left in peace, first, it was the Democrats, who gave up once it was fully investigated, then the Republicans picked it up and Mr T is carrying the torch now till the end of time or as long as it serves his political agenda.

Imagine your wife/brother/sister etc dies and for two decades all you hear are people talking about how she was murdered when it is clear that she wasn't. Would you feel all fine and dandy? And then your dear Boris starts posting tweets and never relents. Would you be again all fine and dandy?

Are you that cruel like Mr T? Or do you strive on perverse fantasies of people suffering? Or just too naive that you don't see who is getting hurt most with these tweets?

FACT CHECK: Russian collusion - read the damn' report mate. It does not say there was no collusion. They didn't find sufficient evidence to indict (e.g. because they considered Donni JR and Sunnyboy too dumb to know the law) but that Mr T welcomed the help from Russia.

 

[Harry_BKK]

This shows some of fauci's inconsistencies and he has been advising the govt and trump.:

One last thing to this, to show you the level Mr T and his cronies are going to cover up their mistakes.

Nancy Messonnier, the head of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases said on 25th Feb: “Disruption to everyday life might be severe.”

Mr T went berzerk and she has never been seen again in any of the briefings. The Director of the agency responsible for exactly this kind of thing was muted!!!

You can look though for the nonsense Mr T and his cronies said on 26th Feb. I'll give you a hint, it was the day of his visionary "15 to zero very soon" comment. Followed-up on the 27th Feb with “It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.”

You can listen to what she said here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[sufferinsilence]

 

[cncas2123]

Mate, you seem to be either losing the plot or falling in love with Mr T.

The outrage about the Scarborough thing is not so much about Scarborough but the family (parents, husband, etc) of that woman who died. For nearly 20 years, they were never left in peace, first, it was the Democrats, who gave up once it was fully investigated, then the Republicans picked it up and Mr T is carrying the torch now till the end of time or as long as it serves his political agenda.

Imagine your wife/brother/sister etc dies and for two decades all you hear are people talking about how she was murdered when it is clear that she wasn't. Would you feel all fine and dandy? And then your dear Boris starts posting tweets and never relents. Would you be again all fine and dandy?

Are you that cruel like Mr T? Or do you strive on perverse fantasies of people suffering? Or just too naive that you don't see who is getting hurt most with these tweets?

FACT CHECK: Russian collusion - read the damn' report mate. It does not say there was no collusion. They didn't find sufficient evidence to indict (e.g. because they considered Donni JR and Sunnyboy too dumb to know the law) but that Mr T welcomed the help from Russia.

Harry he doesn’t read the reports he only looks at the headlines and the sound bites and picks the ones that fit his agenda.
In this thread and the coronavirus thread he continually posts sound bite headlines from dubious sources and states that they are fact and that everyone else is involved in conspiracy.
He’s not for changing regardless of how much fact you put in front of him.
Thankfully I don’t see his content but I can guess what it is from reading the threads .

 

[Harry_BKK]

A fitting meme for your post was posted on that Twitter thread.

 

[Kroffe]

Request from Owl.

 

[Harry_BKK]

The Mr T clan is trying to outdo each other for the most stupid and tone-deaf tweet on the day when the number of death surpassed 100,000 in the US.

 

[ladyhawke]

So the EO seeking to alter the Protections Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has now been signed by Trump. This Act protects Internet companies from being sued over content that appears on their platforms and allows for content moderation.

The essence of the EO is that if Social Media companies restrict certain voices on their platforms, the companies should be stripped of their legal immunity. That in turn could open Social Media companies to a wave of lawsuits over content seen as defamatory.

There are many dissenting voices from the Federal Communications Commission, American Civil Liberties Union, and even Nancy Pelosi, among others, e.g.

"An Executive Order that would turn the Federal Communications Commission into the President's speech police is not the answer."

"This EO is an attempt to punish social media companies for posts that displease the president."

"By exposing companies to potential liability for everything that billions of people around the world say, this would penalize companies that choose to allow controversial speech and encourage platforms to censor anything that might offend anyone," Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said in a statement.

And this from Pelosi, who supports Twitter's initiative to flag tweets that contain falsehoods; "Trump's order directs the federal government to dismantle efforts to help users distinguish fact from fiction."

So as mentioned above, the Communications Decency Act protects Internet companies from being sued over content that appears on their platforms and allows for content moderation.

And this is what I don't understand, and I really would appreciate it if someone would/could enlighten me.

Trump lies and slanders on Twitter with impunity, so if his EO actually was passed into law, and Trump continues tweeting in the manner to which he has become accustomed, could not his frequent defamatory tweets "result in Twitter being subjected to a wave of lawsuits over the defamatory content"?

In other words, won't his own tweets, and possibly his own Twitter account, become a casualty of his own EO?

 

[Harry_BKK]

So the EO seeking to alter the Protections Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has now been signed by Trump. This Act protects Internet companies from being sued over content that appears on their platforms and allows for content moderation.

The essence of the EO is that if Social Media companies restrict certain voices on their platforms, the companies should be stripped of their legal immunity. That in turn could open Social Media companies to a wave of lawsuits over content seen as defamatory.

There are many dissenting voices from the Federal Communications Commission, American Civil Liberties Union, and even Nancy Pelosi, among others, e.g.

"An Executive Order that would turn the Federal Communications Commission into the President's speech police is not the answer."

"This EO is an attempt to punish social media companies for posts that displease the president."

"By exposing companies to potential liability for everything that billions of people around the world say, this would penalize companies that choose to allow controversial speech and encourage platforms to censor anything that might offend anyone," Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said in a statement.

And this from Pelosi, who supports Twitter's initiative to flag tweets that contain falsehoods; "Trump's order directs the federal government to dismantle efforts to help users distinguish fact from fiction."

So as mentioned above, the Communications Decency Act protects Internet companies from being sued over content that appears on their platforms and allows for content moderation.

And this is what I don't understand, and I really would appreciate it if someone would/could enlighten me.

Trump lies and slanders on Twitter with impunity, so if his EO actually was passed into law, and Trump continues tweeting in the manner to which he has become accustomed, could not his frequent defamatory tweets "result in Twitter being subjected to a wave of lawsuits over the defamatory content"?

In other words, won't his own tweets, and possibly his own Twitter account, become a casualty of his own EO?

Mr T is acting on the principle: "Bark the loudest and it will stir commotion" but the much older saying is that "Barking dogs don't bite".

Just another "SEE THERE" CON FROM THE DON to divert attention. It will end up like his election fraud committee, which in itself was a "SEE THERE" CON.

 

[wbritton]

Mr T is acting on the principle: "Bark the loudest and it will stir commotion" but the much older saying is that "Barking dogs don't bite".

Just another "SEE THERE" CON FROM THE DON to divert attention. It will end up like his election fraud committee, which in itself was a "SEE THERE" CON.

Harry you have big time T.D.S

 

[ladyhawke]

A further comment to add to my earlier post regarding Trump's newest EO:

"Legal experts believe it is unconstitutional because it risks infringing on the First Amendment rights of private companies and because it attempts to circumvent the two other branches of government."

And from Dem Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon), the architect of the original 1996 Communications Decency Act legislation:

"Trump is trying to steal for himself the power of the courts and Congress to rewrite decades of settled law. He decides what's legal based on what's in his interest."

Never a truer word was spoken.

Anyway not sure why I am so bothered by this. By the time the EO gets to court and goes through all the necessary legal procedures, Trump and his cronies will be long gone from the WH.

 

[dionysus]

 

[ladyhawke]

View attachment 132770

Only problem with this is- he is missing his lipstick.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Harry you have big time T.D.S

Thanks for the compliment! Your remote diagnostic capabilities are truly astounding.

PS. Your diagnosis is wrong but don't worry I won't tell anyone, so you can continue selling snake oil.

 

[ladyhawke]

This has made my day...my week...my month...my year.

Go Twitter, GO!!!

 

[Harry_BKK]

This has made my day...my week...my month...my year.

Go Twitter, GO!!!

View attachment 132781

So he is on his last breath now, taking a last-ditch effort to shore support by tweeting violent content?

 

[Harry_BKK]

This has made my day...my week...my month...my year.

Go Twitter, GO!!!

View attachment 132781

BTW, this was the tweet.

The emperor with no clothes asserting "total authority" again.

 

[mack341]

From the EO:

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

Exactly what I was saying, the fact checking is one sided.

 

[mack341]

I don't know how useful this EO will be to free speech, but wow it's throwing some truth bombs out there and shines the light on the social media's lack of principle as regarding china

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

 

[mack341]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Judge rejects Tulsi Gabbard’s ‘free speech’ lawsuit against Google

Last July, Hawaii representative and longshot Democratic presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing the company of violating her First Amendment rights to free speech when it briefly suspended her campaign’s ad account. On Wednesday, California’s Central District Court rejected the suit outright.

In the suit, her campaign claimed that Google “helps to run elections” through political advertising and search results — an argument District Judge Stephen Wilson firmly rejected.

In dismissing the case, Wilson writes that what Gabbard “fails to establish is how Google’s regulation of its own platform is in any way equivalent to a governmental regulation of an election.” When it comes to Google, “an undisputedly private company,” the First Amendment’s free speech protections do not apply.

......Political figures in both parties have seized on anti-tech sentiment in recent years, and the Hawaii representative’s lawsuit is just one example of politically expedient posturing against major tech platforms.

-----------

Not sure trump's EO addresses this and would've enabled tulsi's case to have moved forward if it was signed then, how powerful are these EO's compared to congress/senate passed laws and the supreme court?

Just looking up these riots in minnesota and even then twitter seems to promote the posts sympathetic to the riots, whereas I bet the majority of US public opinion is against it, looting and arson should not be part of political protest in a democratic country.

 

[mack341]

 

[pinnit2014]

BTW, this was the tweet.

The emperor with no clothes asserting "total authority" again.

View attachment 132783

He carries himself with such grace, dignity and decorum.

No opinion of him to be honest (only here for the game sheets) but reminds me of the drunk uncle at Christmas; incoherent, few bananas short of a fruit basket and deplorable.

Worryingly, I think he’d probably do well in the Northern Irish Parliamentary elections; we like those with shooting talk

 

[mack341]

RIP MR. FLOYD
Americans witnessed a murder in Minneapolis. For several minutes, a policeman had his knee on the neck of a man which cut off his airways. Mr. Floyd told the officer he couldn’t breath, but that didn’t matter. Floyd was accused of a non-violent crime. He was in handcuffs. He was not resisting. There was no reason for the cop to press his knee into the man’s neck on hard pavement. The other policemen present did try to stop it. George Floyd died without due process or mercy.

Not everyone is cut out to be a policeman. It takes a person with a high tolerance for risk and excitement. It also requires knowledge of right and wrong. In this case, the cop was a sadist. He had to have been taught proper procedure at the police academy, but apparently they can’t teach human decency. They shouldn’t have to.

Which pretty much sums it up.

 

[ladyhawke]

From the EO:

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

Exactly what I was saying, the fact checking is one sided.

The last time Schiff tweeted anything about Russian Collusion was on May 13th, but what you appear to disregard is that Twitter was not fact-checking any posts back then, including Trump. So to criticise Twitter for not fact-checking Schiff's tweets at that point in time is disingenuous in the extreme.

Fast-forward to the other day when the first of Trump's tweets were fact-checked, as perhaps Twitter finally realised just how damaging and divisive Trump's tweets really are, and as such, had simply had enough?

Trump constantly claims he has "sweeping powers" to do what he wants, but refuses to identify the legal basis and authority for those powers - authority he simply doesn't have.

But here he is again, assuming his "I have absolute power" mantle, and signing a meaningless EO.

The most ineffectual, ill-informed, idiotic president the USA has ever had the misfortune to elect.

 

[ladyhawke]

View attachment 132788

RIP MR. FLOYD
Americans witnessed a murder in Minneapolis. For several minutes, a policeman had his knee on the neck of a man which cut off his airways. Mr. Floyd told the officer he couldn’t breath, but that didn’t matter. Floyd was accused of a non-violent crime. He was in handcuffs. He was not resisting. There was no reason for the cop to press his knee into the man’s neck on hard pavement. The other policemen present did try to stop it. George Floyd died without due process or mercy.

Not everyone is cut out to be a policeman. It takes a person with a high tolerance for risk and excitement. It also requires knowledge of right and wrong. In this case, the cop was a sadist. He had to have been taught proper procedure at the police academy, but apparently they can’t teach human decency. They shouldn’t have to.

Which pretty much sums it up.

Sums up what?

Also, the last bolded sentence is Trump in a nutshell. Very sad that you just can't see it.

 

[cncas2123]

Sums up what?

Also, the last bolded sentence is Trump in a nutshell. Very sad that you just can't see it.

Some will only ever see what they want to see , no matter what the truth is or what the facts show.
Sad that there are people who can’t open their minds to facts and evidence but these are the people that the cult of Trump seems to attract and these are the people who try and justify his every word and action.
I feel sorry for the USA because it will be a long time before they get over the damage this man is doing.

 

[mack341]

The last time Schiff tweeted anything about Russian Collusion was on May 13th, but what you appear to disregard is that Twitter was not fact-checking any posts back then, including Trump. So to criticise Twitter for not fact-checking Schiff's tweets at that point in time is disingenuous in the extreme.

Fast-forward to the other day when the first of Trump's tweets were fact-checked, as perhaps Twitter finally realised just how damaging and divisive Trump's tweets really are, and as such, had simply had enough?

Trump constantly claims he has "sweeping powers" to do what he wants, but refuses to identify the legal basis and authority for those powers - authority he simply doesn't have.

But here he is again, assuming his "I have absolute power" mantle, and signing a meaningless EO.

The most ineffectual, ill-informed, idiotic president the USA has ever had the misfortune to elect.

Are you able to have a civil discussion, several of your posts addressed to me keep skating around the level of thinly disguised insults and insinuations.

edit: I got my wires crossed there, apologies for misreading this post

I don't follow twitter's policy movements closely enough it seems, when and where was the announcement that they would be begin fact checking posts? [esp of political figures when you're dealing in opinions and interpretation]

Have they fact checked any democrat politicians yet?

 

[mack341]

Sums up what?

Also, the last bolded sentence is Trump in a nutshell. Very sad that you just can't see it.

It sums up what happened, you're determined to pick at every little thing I post aren't you?

edit: just for the record I am not a trump fanatic, never have been and likely never will be. I'm interested in politics and government as it's one of the main things that impacts on life in the broad sense.

 

[ladyhawke]

Are you able to have a civil discussion, several of your posts addressed to me keep skating around the level of thinly disguised insults and insinuations.

I don't follow twitter's policy movements closely enough it seems, when and where was the announcement that they would be begin fact checking posts? [esp of political figures when you're dealing in opinions and interpretation]

Have they fact checked any democrat politicians yet?

I don't deal in thinly disguised insults and insinuations. I state, quite clearly what I believe, and if I see BS, I call it out.

I am sorry I can't tip-toe around your sensibilities like you want me to.

It sums up what happened, you're determined to pick at every little thing I post aren't you?

edit: just for the record I am not a trump fanatic, never have been and likely never will be. I'm interested in politics and government as it's one of the main things that impacts on life in the broad sense.

I don't see why you added that rider to your original post. As it was, it was an excellent summary of the situation, but to add that implied there was something else going on, which is why I queried it.

And as for your edit: Your posts certainly give the impression you are indeed a Trump fanatic.

 

[mack341]

I don't deal in thinly disguised insults and insinuations. I state, quite clearly what I believe, and if I see BS, I call it out.

I am sorry I can't tip-toe around your sensibilities like you want me to.

Well I agree with the right to free speech and thought, not sure I want you to tip toe around my sensibilities so much as maintain a civil debate/discussion. [as much as possible, but I don't expect it to be like a vicar's tea party here]

You have strong feelings towards trump in one direction, I'm pretty sure I do not have the same strength of feeling in the opposite direction, though it may seem like that.

 

[Harry_BKK]

From the EO:

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

Exactly what I was saying, the fact checking is one sided.

Nonsense mate, you are just simply falling for every CON FROM THE DON.

Just because he said about 1 million times Russian Collusion Hoax does not make it one. The report is very clear on what happened and as such, it stands. That Mr T calls it that is an opinion, not fact.

He has as usual not given any clear evidence and puts out such a badly worded EO (well, for him writing so much is big words), no proper references to which law or regulation has been broken. He's got the best lawyers licking his boots and this is what he/they can come up with?

It is simply a rant of a manchild who's got hit on his fingers by elders for putting his hands into the cookie jar.

But it makes him feel powerful and his CULT can cheer now for a few days again.

 

[mack341]

Nonsense mate, you are just simply falling for every CON FROM THE DON.

Just because he said about 1 million times Russian Collusion Hoax does not make it one. The report is very clear on what happened and as such, it stands. That Mr T calls it that is an opinion, not fact.

He has as usual not given any clear evidence and puts out such badly worded EO (well, for him writing so much is big words), no proper references to which law or regulation has been broken. He's got the best lawyers licking his boots and this is with what he/they can come up with?

It is simply a rant of a manchild who's got hit on his fingers by elders for putting his hands into the cookie jar.

But it makes him feel powerful and his CULT can cheer now for a few days again.

Trump clearly saw this as an attempt to influence the 2020 election, hence his strong reation. I have not fallen for anything as I've already said I don't know how effective this EO is, I read it and it doesn't seem to address the issue trump is concerned about, his tweets being meddled with.

More possibly a threat to their business model by opening them up to being sued.

It's probably all he could do, and it might galvanise voters again to support him, the majority of the public don't want more censorship and thought control, it's happening with the covid-19 too, videos and comments deleted.

Could turn out to be a majorly stupid decision by twitter, not elders just virtue signallers and hipsters, they were getting away with political bias and now it's going to come under the microscope, unless biden wins and then this is all buried.

 

[mack341]

american bar asssociation:

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

That should be enough to warrant fact checking schiff if he is saying trump colluded with russia, he had his chance to prove it being head of the intel committee, if twitter's new policy is to fact check posts then readers should now be pointed to this conclusion.

But I bet they don't, and in a way I agree stay out of politics and opinion, as zuckerberg even said 'we (social media platforms) should not try to be the arbiters of truth'; let trump tweet his opinions and thoughts, and then the public decide at the ballot box in November.

 

[Steviedoo]

american bar asssociation:

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

That should be enough to warrant fact checking schiff if he is saying trump colluded with russia, he had his chance to prove it being head of the intel committee, if twitter's new policy is to fact check posts then readers should now be pointed to this conclusion.

But I bet they don't, and in a way I agree stay out of politics and opinion, as zuckerberg even said 'we (social media platforms) should not try to be the arbiters of truth'; let trump tweet his opinions and thoughts, and then the public decide at the ballot box in November.

where is that quote from.....do we have to list again how many meetings took place between the trump campaign and russians?


they now suspect Israel helped the Russians meddle in the election ...it’s coming out in the trial of Netanyahu..

 

[mack341]

where is that quote from.....do we have to list again how many meetings took place between the trump campaign and russians?


they now suspect Israel helped the Russians meddle in the election ...it’s coming out in the trial of Netanyahu..

well I just put 'mueller conclusions' into google and that was one of the early results, it is from the ABA official site so I believe it's legit, it says 'despite' etc etc... one of the meetings was with that russian lawyer women, and then the next day she had a meeting with a democrat or somebody in the dnc. That was a honey trap of some kind.

At the end of the day it comes down to the voters, I think you know donald was more popular than hillary in 2016 and people wanted to try something new. Ross perot made similar headway in 96, trump gained the same 'outsider vote' and the republican vote.

Hillary had all the media support she could ever ask for, biden in a way is less getting less unequivocal support from the media but I expect will poll better than hillary, it's going to be very close I feel, but I don't know the feeling on the ground in the US, there could be another 'uuge' win for trump on the way.

The bookmakers have it very close and they don't want to lose money from trump having longer odds than he should.

 

[vorcirion]

well I just put 'mueller conclusions' into google and that was one of the early results, it is from the ABA official site so I believe it's legit, it says 'despite' etc etc... one of the meetings was with that russian lawyer women, and then the next day she had a meeting with a democrat or somebody in the dnc. That was a honey trap of some kind.

At the end of the day it comes down to the voters, I think you know donald was more popular than hillary in 2016 and people wanted to try something new. Ross perot made similar headway in 96, trump gained the same 'outsider vote' and the republican vote.

Hillary had all the media support she could ever ask for, biden in a way is less getting less unequivocal support from the media but I expect will poll better than hillary, it's going to be very close I feel but I don't know the feeling on the ground in the US it could be another 'uuge' win for trump. The bookmakers have it very close and they don't want to lose money from trump having longer odds than he should.

Just to remind you...Trump lost the popular vote. So how can you say he was more popular than Hillary?
Trump is just another crappy right-wing leader with Boris and Bolsonaro. The faster they are kicked out of office the better for their countries it will be.

 

[mack341]

Just to remind you...Trump lost the popular vote. So how can you say he was more popular than Hillary?
Trump is just another crappy right-wing leader with Boris and Bolsonaro. The faster they are kicked out of office the better for their countries it will be.

That is a fair point ( which I've forgotten more than once before ) but across the whole nation, hillary did get many votes in certain states/cities but not enough across the board. Biden will appeal to a broader demographic I'm sure.

That last bit is the key of any election, the argument they have to win, under which party will the country be better and what are the criteria, what makes a good country. high education levels, good healthcare, low crime etc...

 

[vorcirion]

That is a fair point ( which I've forgotten more than once before ) but across the whole nation, hillary did get many votes in certain states/cities but not enough across the board. Biden will appeal to a broader demographic I'm sure.

Yup he will and no matter what Fox does...they just can't make him hated figure like Hillary was. And neither can Trump with his credibility issues. Biden's lead has been very constant for a long time. Only 5 months to go about...dunno what Trump needs to do to win. I doubt picking fights with Twitter or shooting looters will help.