nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Beasty

No spitting, biting, gouging or uncivility allowed

First thread here

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

weisses

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So they punished Facebook accordingly. Great. Hopefully the TicTok situation gets sorted. I understand Microsoft may be taking it over

Should facebook be banned as well by Trump ?? you know, to protect its citizens .... the fine the got was pocket money to them

Simple yes or no would suffice

ExMachina1000

weisses wrote: »

Should facebook be banned as well by Trump ?? you know, to protect its citizens .... the fine the got was pocket money to them

Simple yes or no would suffice

Here you go

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-threatens-to-use-executive-orders-against-big-tech-2020-7

Kidchameleon

weisses wrote: »

Should facebook be banned as well by Trump ?? you know, to protect its citizens .... the fine the got was pocket money to them

Simple yes or no would suffice

Well are TicTok beong banned? Last I heard they were simply being taken over by Microsoft. I cannot give a yes or no answer without knowing all the ins and outs of both cases. I highly doubt they both commited the exact same crime. If by some strange reason their crimes were exactly the same the yes, the punishment should be equal.

Timberrrrrrrr

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Here you go

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-threatens-to-use-executive-orders-against-big-tech-2020-7

Another Trump EO that would mean diddly squat. Makes him look tough to his zealots but in reality it would be (to coin a phrase) a nothingburger.

weisses

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Here you go

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-threatens-to-use-executive-orders-against-big-tech-2020-7

Where does he talk about banning these companies ?

weisses

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well are TicTok beong banned? Last I heard they were simply being taken over by Microsoft. I cannot give a yes or no answer without knowing all the ins and outs of both cases. I highly doubt they both commited the exact same crime. If by some strange reason their crimes were exactly the same the yes, the punishment should be equal.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/1/21350578/tiktok-ban-president-trump-comments-order

MisterAnarchy

ollkiller wrote: »

Your point was refuted. And your logical conclusion is to throw the toys out of the pram. Common enough in this thread with Trump supporters. Ye must not like debating at all.

Firstly, my point wasn’t refuted.
To refute something is to prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false.
Nobody did that.

Secondly, I’m not a Trump supporter.
Just because I don’t hate Trump, like you do, as you reiterate on an almost daily basis on this forum, doesn’t mean I’m a supporter of Trump.
There is a difference, people can have a different viewpoint, or maybe they can’t anymore.

I’m not a supporter of Trump and I’m not a supporter of Biden either, if anything I dislike Trump the person more than Biden but I don’t think Trump is the devil incarnate like so many people are conditioned to think.
That doesn’t fit with the narrative though, Trump is evil, a racist ,a dictator and anyone who says otherwise must be insulted and derided.
Cancelled even.

Here is the transcript of Obamas eulogy, a eulogy that he rambled on for over 40 minutes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/us/obama-eulogy-john-lewis-full-transcript.html
I stand by what I said, I believe that parts of this speech were used as an election speech, a platform to have a pop at Donald Trump who is running against his friend and former Vice President Joe Biden.

In the middle of a pandemic, where a lot of people couldn’t bury their dead, couldn’t even see their dead, Obama had the audacity to prattle on for 40 minutes in a church where there were a lot more than 50 people and social distancing was not being observed.
Bill Clinton spoke for 16 minutes, George W Bush for under 7.
Why did Obama feel the need to speak for 40 minutes?
He was always good at talking, that’s about all he was good for really.

Will Obama and indeed Pelosi now quarantine for the mandatory 2 weeks as a result of travelling to Georgia?
They are exempted because they are politicians, essential workers as such, I forgot.
Its one rule for them and another for the public, do as we say not do as we do.

Its just the hypocrisy of these people, they will lambast Trump for the same things they do themselves.
US politics is in a toxic state, the democrats hate the republicans and vica versa like never before.

There seems to be no common ground .
Both sides will literally do anything to knock the other and I don’t like either of them.
Whoever wins the election Trump or Biden, do people honestly think it will make much of a difference?
Will it be all rosy in the garden again ?
But for the Corona Virus, Trump was walking into another term despite the protestations and wailings of the left and the blatantly biased media like CNN who have thrown as much dirt as they possibly can.

[Deleted User]

I'm pretty sure that Obama will follow whatever the recommended health guidelines are. Also while there's the lack of distancing in the church, guessing family have stuck together more than anything. Plus the entire church is masked up.

Igotadose

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

But for the Corona Virus, Trump was walking into another term despite the protestations and wailings of the left and the blatantly biased media like CNN who have thrown as much dirt as they possibly can.

No, he wasn't. It was competitive esp. with the oil industry recession. Wasn't polling well either.

Carfacemandog

From what I've read on tiktok they're pretty bad news. Yes there's the whole issue of not taking the same action on Facebook (whose discretion in US political advertising etc pales in comparison to its role in other things like the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar*) and yes Microsoft taking over might have changed things somewhat, but I've got no issue with outright banning, it if he can.

*Facebook and the Rohingya genocide - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html

ExMachina1000

weisses wrote: »

Where does he talk about banning these companies ?

He never mentioned banning those companies. Why would he ? Ridiculous

Carfacemandog

Igotadose wrote: »

No, he wasn't. It was competitive esp. with the oil industry recession. Wasn't polling well either.

Pretty much. Biden was polling ahead of Trump at least as early as March 1st, despite having onky taken an extremely narrow lead on Bernie Sanders the day prior. Since the horrific handling of the covid situation, this lead has doubled - but most importantly is where it has grown strongest, which is in many 'purple' states that are up for grabs or 'rust belt' states that Trump took in 2016. Biden leads in every single one of these bar Ohio (where truno has a 0.5% lead), and usually by a reasonably comfortable 6-8%. Biden shockingly even leads polling in Texas (by the same 0.5% that Trump does in Ohio), and even before the crisis was within about 4% of Trump there which is shockingly close for that part of the country.

We're still over 90 days from the election (Nov 3) and a lot can change between then and now, and I don't see Biden winning Texas either way though it is a major distraction for the trump campaign for what shoukd be a given. But it's not as if Trump has gone from a large lead (or even a lead at all) 5-6 months ago to the 8.2% he trails by now, nationally. He has spent the last 3.5 years giving people who sat at home or deemed him 'the lesser of two evils' in 2016 ample reasons to show up and vote against him, which really wasn't a great strategy when he won so many key states by razor thin margins to begin with.

And that's before pointing out that if he had treated the virus seriously from the start and actually led the US to a good response while properly assisting the public through the shutdown period, his approval and reelection chances could have soared. Instead he chose to have one of the worst responses, right up there with bolsonaro in Brazil, to the crisis and has seen his popularity suffer as a result. That's on Trump, not the virus.

duploelabs

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

He never mentioned banning those companies. Why would he ? Ridiculous

He's already threatened twitter https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/27/trump-twitter-social-media-threat-conservatives?

nthclare

duploelabs wrote: »

He's already threatened twitter https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/27/trump-twitter-social-media-threat-conservatives?

Think about it, Twitter is absolute rubbish and if he pulled the carpet from underneath twatter and pulled out their plug he'd be doing us all a favour...

He loves winding them all up and they're taking the bait, hook line and sinker..

ExMachina1000

duploelabs wrote: »

He's already threatened twitter https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/27/trump-twitter-social-media-threat-conservatives?

It's an awful pity nobody can pull the plug from the guardian. Awful dribbly auld shīte

duploelabs

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

It's an awful pity nobody can pull the plug from the guardian. Awful dribbly auld shīte

Ah yes, attack the source, not the message that disproves your statement that I was replying to

ExMachina1000

duploelabs wrote: »

Ah yes, attack the source, not the message that disproves your statement that I was replying to

Yes because the source is junk. The guardian is garbage.

Just because you might have bought yourself a subscription doesn't mean the rest of us have to fall in line to their twisted gutter journalism

ExMachina1000

Blaaz_ wrote: »

Is there anything,in particular in the article,

You feel to be factually incorrect or is an attempt to force authors personal view onto others??

I saw the name the guardian in the link. That was enough for me. Its akin to someone posting Breitbart articles for the other side.

Its divisive garbage

[Deleted User]

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yes because the source is junk. The guardian is garbage.

Just because you might have bought yourself a subscription doesn't mean the rest of us have to fall in line to their twisted gutter journalism

The source of their content was his tweets including an executive order that occurred directly after his misleading tweets were highlighted. Feel free to highlight what's incorrect in the article. Otherwise you're just being a bit silly.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I saw the name the guardian in the link. That was enough for me. Its akin to someone posting Breitbart articles for the other side.

Its divisive garbage

The guardian are far from Breitbart so you're just coming across as a tad ignorant.

duploelabs

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yes because the source is junk. The guardian is garbage.

Just because you might have bought yourself a subscription doesn't mean the rest of us have to fall in line to their twisted gutter journalism

OK, aside from the source, do you retract what you said about Trump never threatening to ban other social networks?

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The source of their content was his tweets including an executive order that occurred directly after his misleading tweets were highlighted. Feel free to highlight what's incorrect in the article. Otherwise you're just being a bit silly.

I refuse to even read it to be honest. The Guardian, buzzfeed , nowthis etc are junk. They are being kept alive by printing divisive rubbish.

Stick to Reuters, the financial times and to a lesser extent The Associated Press.

We would all be better off. Division on top of division means nobody wins.

elli21

Here is the truth about Ireland.The vast majority of us IRISH live side by side with no problems .I can walk my dogs and eat bacon..have never met a fool to tell me otherwise...But now we in Ireland have US politics telling us otherwise

Overheal

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I refuse to even read it to be honest. The Guardian, buzzfeed , nowthis etc are junk. They are being kept alive by printing divisive rubbish.

Stick to Reuters, the financial times and to a lesser extent The Associated Press.

We would all be better off. Division on top of division means nobody wins.

Are you going to pretend that Trump didn’t threaten Twitter with such action?

This argumentum ad hominem is lazy.

ExMachina1000

Overheal wrote: »

Are you going to pretend that Trump didn’t threaten Twitter with such action?

This argumentum ad hominem is lazy.

I don't know if he did or not. I don't really care either. I just don't want to lower myself by reading guardian links.

Timberrrrrrrr

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I don't know if he did or not. I don't really care either. I just don't want to lower myself by reading guardian links.

What an absolutely ridiculous stance to take.

ExMachina1000

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What an absolutely ridiculous stance to take.

Not really. Stop trying to force your ideas and beliefs.
I'm not interested in reading the guardian. I have repeated this numerous times.

You have no right

[Deleted User]

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Not really. Stop trying to force your ideas and beliefs.
I'm not interested in reading the guardian. I have repeated this numerous times.

You have no right

Cool, you should probably stop commenting on content you haven't read. It's not very clever.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Cool, you should probably stop commenting on content you haven't read. It's not very clever.

Agreed.

The guardian shouldn't be read by anyone

Overheal

The next step if posting in good faith would be to do your own research then to circumvent a source you won’t even bother to read. If I roll my eyes at someone’s citing the daily caller or gateway Pundit I can still go around and check if what they’re saying is disproven nonsense or if it’s a case of a broken clock being right twice a day. Just filibustering the conversation because you don’t like what color of plate the information came served on is disingenuous and nobody takes you seriously digging your feet in like this.

You can google “trump threatens twitter” and find all manner of pages that report on primary sources, like the presidents own tweets, that corroborate that headline. Acting as though you still aren’t sure if he threatened Twitter is impressing no one.

ExMachina1000

Overheal wrote: »

The next step if posting in good faith would be to do your own research then to circumvent a source you won’t even bother to read. If I roll my eyes at someone’s citing the daily caller or gateway Pundit I can still go around and check if what they’re saying is disproven nonsense or if it’s a case of a broken clock being right twice a day. Just filibustering the conversation because you don’t like what color of plate the information came served on is disingenuous and nobody takes you seriously digging your feet in like this.

You can google “trump threatens twitter” and find all manner of pages that report on primary sources, like the presidents own tweets, that corroborate that headline. Acting as though you still aren’t sure if he threatened Twitter is impressing no one.

I had a look on Reuters under the Trump headline. I got this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump/trump-to-propose-plan-to-make-u-s-immigration-more-merit-based-idUSKCN1SL2CX

Unrelated to the Twitter story but a great idea none the less. Similar to Australia and soon to be UK system.

Also an article about trump announcing he will ban tik toc. It's a short video sight for children and young people.