Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Trump used twitter to speak unfiltered and raw to the American people. If you wanted to see what Trump actually said you simply had to follow and read his Twitter.
Previous Presidents depended solely on the press and TV and newspapers who selectively reported or edited what was said to fit their narrative.
No Big Tech is doing this.

Trump can hold live presser's. You know this.

You have complained about Ayatollah's, B.L.M. terrorist's, (your words) and Islamic hate preacher's still having access to twitter ,whilst trying to make out that poor old Donald, who has access to world media on request, is some kind of martyr!

Cop on!

Write a letter to the White House and inform Donald about Live press conference's.

Farage talks about this radicalising Americans and causing even more polarisation.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Look those protests were largely peaceful you must understand.
The 2 billion dollars worth of damage done, that was just collateral damage.
Thousands of innocent people had their homes and business destroyed.
Cities burned for weeks, innocent people were beaten up, people were killed.
It was like something you'd see in a third world country.

The irony of the whole BLM riots was that it was happening in mostly Democrat controlled cities and states yet somehow Trump was solely to blame for causing it.

Trump takes alot of blame yes.

Instead of letting protestors peaceful assemble he immediately went heavy handed calling in riot police and federal law enforcement who then beat the **** out of protestors.

This in turn saw far right and far left elements enter the fray and clash.

So his current options seem to be

1. Leave the White House at the appointed hour and risk jail for inciting insurrection
2. Sit it out until he's manhandled out of the White House and be assured jail for fomenting an overthrow of the state.
3. Leave quietly in the coming days on the pretext of heading back to Florida but actually bolting to Russia or somewhere else beyond extradition and spending the rest of his life promising a second coming. Maybe even setting up his own Trumpistan which he'll fund via contributions from his faithful and a few posters here!
4. Double down and rally his followers to descend on Washington for a second attempt and be arrested and imprisoned immediately.

The smart move would be 3, but I reckon his reptile brain will probably go for 4 because he literally does not know how to back down.

completedit wrote: »

He is but what happens if big tech sides with a Trump like character in the future, where does that leave us?

They haven’t sided with anyone he broke the rules.

rossie1977 wrote: »

Trump takes alot of blame yes.

Instead of letting protestors peaceful assemble he immediately went heavy handed calling in riot police and federal law enforcement who then beat the **** out of protestors.

This in turn saw far right and far left elements enter the fray and clash.

Ironically, you had Republicans trying to push Federal Agents to the States against the wishes of those States, in an attempt to enforce federal government controls.

completedit wrote: »

There clearly is Orwellian elements to censorship of an idealogy that doesn't fit in with the narrative pushed by companies who dominate the discourse of our society. This is now ever more prominent in this digital age we are entering. Just because it doesn't fit perfectly with the story doesn't negate it as a descriptor of what's happening. I've read the book.

Would you call Boards.ie 'Orwellian' for banning posters who continuously breach the rules of this site?

How would you describe Trump's assertion that the press are "Truly the enemy of the people"?

completedit wrote: »

He is but what happens if big tech sides with a Trump like character in the future, where does that leave us?

The same thing as if someone like Murdoch sides with them. The power of a lot of large media organisations does need to be curbed though that seems unlikely to come from the right. This seems like a separate topic to banning someone for inciting a right wing coup which I think many would agree is a decent banning.

It should be noted that big tech has been far more lenient with Trump repeatedly breaking the tos he signed up to due to his position so you can't really say they sided against him. More he pushed several miles past their terms of service and were forced to act or admit that their platforms had no rules.

Trump will probably hold his own presidential inauguration.
He won, and that what happens after you win.

There's clearly a limit to free speech when it comes to inciting hatred or violence or when the speech is slanderous, this isn't a new thing, that just appeared with social media, these rules have been there for a long time.

Richard Hillman wrote: »

This will lead to:
Trump setting up his one news channel (something people always thought would happen), taking his supporters with him.
Trump setting up his own social network, taking his supporters with him.
Trump setting up his own financial services company, taking his supporters with him.

It could lead Trump to become a hundred billionaire.

This is genuinely one of the funniest things I've read on here. Fair play.

completedit wrote: »

He is but what happens if big tech sides with a Trump like character in the future, where does that leave us?

Are you essentially asking what if they didn't ban him? Because they didn't for almost 4 years.

Twitter are not "taking sides". They're banning someone who broke their terms of service and incited violence, and was responsible for one of the most disgraceful political moments in US history.

Banning someone like Bernie Sanders is not the equivalent of banning Trump. That idea is based on them being banned for their political views, not their behaviour (eg. inciting violence etc.). That hasn't happened. Trump wasn't banned because he's republican, and all the posters here trying to suggest as much really need to look in the mirror and question how they have came to be part of the cult following that is bringing disgrace on the US. Because simply hating the left is not a valid reason to support a cancerous character like Trump, I'm afraid.

It is worrying the amount of support he has on boards. I would not be surprised if many of these accounts are US based in order to drum up support and muddy the waters of what is reasonable discussion. The disease of political polarisation that has infected the US is clearly taking hold here. Go into any thread in Current Affairs and within a few posts you will have a number of posts blaming the left, regardless of the topic. It's not even about the issue at hand, it's about "their team". I'm not saying the left aren't guilty of the same, but it appears to be on another level for the right, at least on boards. Hoards of conservatives all making themselves out to be victims of some widespread, far left conspiracy.

joseywhales wrote: »

There's clearly a limit to free speech when it comes to inciting hatred or violence or when the speech is slanderous, this isn't a new thing, that just appeared with social media, these rules have been there for a long time.

salmocab wrote: »

Most people don’t understand what free speech means. It’s never meant you can say what you want when you want where you want with no consequences.

Yes. "Free speech" basically refers to the concept/right that the state cannot restrict you.



It does not remove any responsibilities or repercussions for you from what you say

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Trump will probably hold his own presidential inauguration.
He won, and that what happens after you win.

He didn't win, though. Do you need some help with differentiating between the word "winning" and the word "losing"? We're here to help.