ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DEAD AMERICANS.
Ignore the distractors.
ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DEAD AMERICANS.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ETBWtrwUcAEJ6Qf?format=jpg&name=medium
ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DEAD AMERICANS.
Ignore the distractors.
ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DEAD AMERICANS.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ETBWtrwUcAEJ6Qf?format=jpg&name=medium
Sure Jan wrote:
Ciro wrote:
An occasional disgrace and a permanent embarrassment.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ugly-even-him-trumps-media-121817106.html“Trump opening up this front with Joe Scarborough is another thing in the news cycle, another thing for people to talk about,” [Howard} Polskin said. “It occupies time on the talk shows. It gets people away from that 100,000 figure,” referring to the estimated number of Americans who have died from coronavirus.
“Trump’s a master at that,” he added. “Throwing out these bright, shiny diversions.”
Absolute true and on some level it works, but is it really too much to ask that people recognize he botched the pandemic and he behaves like a vile little child throwing temper tantrums online?
Trump the pre-teen twitter queen. The most unmanly “man” ever.
What makes a right winger's head explode faster - someone wearing a mask or Greta Thunberg? Both things seem to set them off.
Libertarian Centrist wrote:
L L wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.htmlAntone see this as a First Amendment issue?
I'm amazed at this hypocrisy. The satire is so thick that it's almost like we're reading a Douglas Adams novel.
I'm sure you are thinking of Zaphod Beeblebrox. Trump is sort of like Zaphod. Trump is as foolish and self-absorbed, but definitely not as cool. Zaphod seems like a pretty fun guy. And he did invent the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. Tiny never achieved anything great like that.
L L wrote:
johnny99 wrote:
I'd argue that it's not a First Amendment issue. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not on Twitter and don't pay much attention to it), but they're not limiting what he can say, they're not deleting or changing anything. So, arguably, his right to free speech hasn't been impaired in any way. He's still able to say basically whatever he wants.
Is Twitter putting a fact check link on his tweet any different than some random person replying to the tweet by saying Trump is wrong and adding a fact check link? That stuff goes on here all the time, the only difference is that when it's done by Twitter, it looks more "official".
The issue isn't what Twitter is doing - it's what Trump is doing.
Trump (the government) is trying to restrict Twitter's freedom of speech.
Trump is telling a private company what it has a right to say or not say.
Would we accept Trump as a moderator to every social media site?
I don't believe that a corporation should have first amendment rights. Rights are for people, not artificial legal entities like businesses. But I digress...
johnny99 wrote:
I'd argue that it's not a First Amendment issue. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not on Twitter and don't pay much attention to it), but they're not limiting what he can say, they're not deleting or changing anything. So, arguably, his right to free speech hasn't been impaired in any way. He's still able to say basically whatever he wants.
Is Twitter putting a fact check link on his tweet any different than some random person replying to the tweet by saying Trump is wrong and adding a fact check link? That stuff goes on here all the time, the only difference is that when it's done by Twitter, it looks more "official".
For a non-political person, Trump's tweets regarding Scarborough would be subject to being deleted and his account suspended. The fact that he is POTUS has protected him in this case but he's too stupid to understand this.
Twitter hasn't done anything but state that his tweet was false....which is true.
Can it be stated any more plainly that Donald Trump is an f'in idiot.
A great ad, even if it doesn't turn any tzees
It would be funny of McConnell's seat turns blue and that that's the deciding seat to turn the senate majority to the Democrats.
L L wrote:
It would be funny of McConnell's seat turns blue and that that's the deciding seat to turn the senate majority to the Democrats.
Even funnier if an ad created by Republicans played a part in that happening.
Donny is going to change the headlines if he has to wreck the economy to do it.
Here come more tariffs.
Smoot-Hawley 2.
And Mitch won't lift a finger to stop him.
The irony of Trump's twitter tantrum is social media "fact checks" are partly in response to his lengthy, prior complaints of "fake news".
Trump's Executive Order to muzzle unfavourable media is utter lunacy and will not be upheld - even if he's stacked the DOJ and Supreme Court.
There's a reason why "Free Speech" is the FIRST amendment.
Fat hurts wrote:
L L wrote:
The issue isn't what Twitter is doing - it's what Trump is doing.
Trump (the government) is trying to restrict Twitter's freedom of speech.
Trump is telling a private company what it has a right to say or not say.
Would we accept Trump as a moderator to every social media site?
I don't believe that a corporation should have first amendment rights. Rights are for people, not artificial legal entities like businesses. But I digress...
lol
Fat hurts wrote:
I don't believe that a corporation should have first amendment rights. Rights are for people, not artificial legal entities like businesses. But I digress...
"Corporations are people, my friend!"
But you think twitter does not have free speech rights, and President Trump does.
I am glad you don't agree with Junior Senator from Utah...
100000 deaths
41million unemployed.
Great job Mr. Hoax!!!!!!
Trollminator wrote:
A great ad, even if it doesn't turn any tzees
https://twitter.com/i/status/1265962113765384193
that ad is not fair at all - mitch made all his money by marrying well. The ad implies he made the money by being a senator.
Fat hurts wrote:
L L wrote:
The issue isn't what Twitter is doing - it's what Trump is doing.
Trump (the government) is trying to restrict Twitter's freedom of speech.
Trump is telling a private company what it has a right to say or not say.
Would we accept Trump as a moderator to every social media site?
I don't believe that a corporation should have first amendment rights. Rights are for people, not artificial legal entities like businesses. But I digress...
So what you're saying is that Trump has the authority to tell a private company, Twitter, how to do business?
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I don't believe that a corporation should have first amendment rights. Rights are for people, not artificial legal entities like businesses. But I digress...
lol
McConnell’s 30 million is entirely made off his salary and "wise investments" of his part of his wife's inheritance. His wife inherited the money, not him. And somehow it was setup to be a joint account with special tax treatment.
FACT: Did you know the money McConnell inherited from his wife's money is tax-exempt?
Page 4 of,
http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00003389_2008.pdfMake America Great Again! wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I don't believe that a corporation should have first amendment rights. Rights are for people, not artificial legal entities like businesses. But I digress...
"Corporations are people, my friend!"
But you think twitter does not have free speech rights, and President Trump does.
I am glad you don't agree with Junior Senator from Utah...
Twitter does have free speech rights. I think they should not.
They also have every right to dictate what happens on their platform. And they should.
Libertarian Centrist wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I don't believe that a corporation should have first amendment rights. Rights are for people, not artificial legal entities like businesses. But I digress...
So what you're saying is that Trump has the authority to tell a private company, Twitter, how to do business?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Read my previous post.