What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place (10 Viewers)

dkp993 said:
I’m absolutely blown away at the right, the party of freedom and personal choice, want to censor how private businesses manage what is said on their own forum.  WTF has this world come too. This is a private business ya’ll, Joe can run it as he see’s fit.  It’s none of our “right” to be here.  Unreal man.  
Click to expand...
Weird.  All the headlines say that the executive order cracks down on Twitter's "censorship" of the people that use their service.  That's kind of backward from the way you say it.

Should people be allowed to say what they want on Twitter?  Should Twitter be allowed to change what people say?  Does google have the right to customize your search suppressing websites they don't like and promoting those that do?  I tend to agree with you, except, everyone seems to take google search as gospel and they get their news and information from twitter and facebook.  Can news organization print whatever they want and call it news?  It sure seems so and I'm not sure what the right answer is.

 
It occurs to me that google is the best "business" model ever.  Be the sole de facto search engine and determine what information 99% of the people on the plant find on web.  And then collect all that data and us it as you see fit.  

 
tonydead said:
Weird.  All the headlines say that the executive order cracks down on Twitter's "censorship" of the people that use their service.  That's kind of backward from the way you say it.

Should people be allowed to say what they want on Twitter?  Should Twitter be allowed to change what people say?  Does google have the right to customize your search suppressing websites they don't like and promoting those that do?  I tend to agree with you, except, everyone seems to take google search as gospel and they get their news and information from twitter and facebook.  Can news organization print whatever they want and call it news?  It sure seems so and I'm not sure what the right answer is.
Click to expand...
It’s not backward at all. Twitter should have the right to censor as they see fit. It’s their platform.  As should Joe here. You (the collective you not speaking to you specifically) should be able to post as you will and Twitter has the right to allow it or not.  Twitter or Facebook or this forum or whatever are not an owed right to any of us. This type of thinking use to be foundational to the right.  Apparently under Trump that’s just not the case anymore. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
It not backward at all. Twitter should have the right to censor as they see fit. It’s their platform.  As should Joe here. You (the collective you not speaking to you specifically) should be able to post as you will and Twitter has the right to allow it or not.  Twitter or Facebook or this forum or whatever are not an owed right to any of us. This type of thinking use to be foundational to the right.  Apparently under Trump that’s just not the case anymore. 
Click to expand...
Private businesses have the right to run their websites as they feel fit. Anything else could be considered socialism.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
How would Trump? Somehow that seems like a more important question.
Click to expand...
Not that we will have to worry:

Jim Acosta‏ @Acosta 2h2 hours ago

Trump said he would shut down Twitter, if he could: “If it were legal, if it could be legally shut down, I would do it.” But Trump also told reporters he's not deleting his account.

Daniel Dale‏ @ddale8 2h2 hours ago

Trump: "There's nothing I'd rather do than get rid of my whole Twitter account," but the media is so dishonest that I need it.

 
squistion said:
Not that we will have to worry:

Jim Acosta‏ @Acosta 2h2 hours ago

Trump said he would shut down Twitter, if he could: “If it were legal, if it could be legally shut down, I would do it.” But Trump also told reporters he's not deleting his account.

Daniel Dale‏ @ddale8 2h2 hours ago

Trump: "There's nothing I'd rather do than get rid of my whole Twitter account," but the media is so dishonest that I need it.
Click to expand...
Please follow one of the thread rules and keep acosta out of here

 
dkp993 said:
It’s not backward at all. Twitter should have the right to censor as they see fit. It’s their platform.  As should Joe here. You (the collective you not speaking to you specifically) should be able to post as you will and Twitter has the right to allow it or not.  Twitter or Facebook or this forum or whatever are not an owed right to any of us. This type of thinking use to be foundational to the right.  Apparently under Trump that’s just not the case anymore. 
Click to expand...
Well you said it wrong. The government isnt censoring Twitter.   It's trying to keep them from censoring Twitter users.  Unless you are trying to lump every law or regulation into a form of censorship which seems bizarre, there are all types of laws businesses have to follow.  

Facebook is taking an opposing stance not willing to get into the arbitration of truth business. You at least have to admit twitter has an agenda here despite whether you think they should be able to do it or not.  

 
tonydead said:
Well you said it wrong. The government isnt censoring Twitter.   It's trying to keep them from censoring Twitter users.  Unless you are trying to lump every law or regulation into a form of censorship which seems bizarre, there are all types of laws businesses have to follow.  

Facebook is taking an opposing stance not willing to get into the arbitration of truth business. You at least have to admit twitter has an agenda here despite whether you think they should be able to do it or not.  
Click to expand...
Not allowing them to censor someone is a form of censorship.  I’m really not sure why your arguing semantics when you absolutely know the point I’m doing at.  It seems as if you’re avoiding the point just to argue.  

And of course I’m not saying Twitter doesn’t have an agenda, I’m sure they do (though I would not pretend to know what it is).  But that is absolutely within their right, as it is for Facebook to play the middle for advertising dollars.  

It’s dangerous business what’s being floated around by Trump and I’m just shocked to see people supporting the idea, especially anyone on the right, even if they agree Twitter is biased.  
 

*For the record I’d be surprised by the left supporting it too just less so with their love of big government and regulation.  

 
dkp993 said:
Not allowing them to censor someone is a form of censorship.  I’m really not sure why your arguing semantics when you absolutely know the point I’m doing at.  It seems as if you’re avoiding the point just to argue.  

And of course I’m not saying Twitter doesn’t have an agenda, I’m sure they do (though I would not pretend to know what it is).  But that is absolutely within their right, as it is for Facebook to play the middle for advertising dollars.  

It’s dangerous business what’s being floated around by Trump and I’m just shocked to see people supporting the idea, especially anyone on the right, even if they agree Twitter is biased.  
 

*For the record I’d be surprised by the left supporting it too just less so with their love of big government and regulation.  
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with your overall point. I'm just pointing out that if keeping someone from censoring someone else is itself a form of censorship, well, you've just put yourself in an unresolvable logic loop.  

You will say next that government can't censor but private businesses can.  I'm not so sure that is true. The supreme court's only ruling on the gay wedding cake vs Baker failed to say if it was within the businesses rights to discriminate based on their own religion or free speech rights. 

Next you will say political party is not a protected class. And it's not currently, not at the federal level but, with recent political tensions it is against the law in 3 states and most states have rules for descrimination now for employers regarding employees political party.  Maybe this is part of the country moving in that direction.  Do you think a Baker is within their rights to refuse to make a gay or Trump cake?  

ETA: Twitter is located in one of the states that have descrimination laws against political affiliation. Interesting.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tonydead said:
Do you think a Baker is within their rights to refuse to make a gay or Trump cake? 
Click to expand...
That’s a really interesting question and worthy of some good discussion, unfortunately that would strongly continue the derailment of this thread.  But short answer is yes, but it’s not completely black or white (no pun intended). The line there is fuzzy and it’s a slippery slope to  not serving someone of color (or the like).  

 
dkp993 said:
That’s a really interesting question and worthy of some good discussion, unfortunately that would strongly continue the derailment of this thread.  But short answer is yes, but it’s not completely black or white (no pun intended). The line there is fuzzy and it’s a slippery slope to  not serving someone of color (or the like).  
Click to expand...
This CNN article says about Sander being refused service in a restaurant: 

If Sanders was refused service in DC, and it was considered a result of her political affiliation, that would have been illegal in the nation's capital. Virginia has a similar list, but it doesn't include political affiliation.
Click to expand...
California is on that list with political descrimination laws. I think I've convinced myself that what Twitter is doing is illegal.  

 
tonydead said:
This CNN article says about Sander being refused service in a restaurant: 

California is on that list with political descrimination laws. I think I've convinced myself that what Twitter is doing is illegal.  
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with the Sanders situation, she should have been served.  But if she was screaming at the top of her lungs they’d have cause to boot.  Same with Trump (in this example), he hasn’t been kicked off Twitter and is still being “served”. 
I also think a point that you and I aren’t discussing but is relevant is the responsibility of the POTUS and Twitter(or any Social Media platform) content. I know many around here think it doesn’t matter what he says on there but I disagree wholeheartedly. The POTUS has enormous weight and influence, every word matters (Whomever the POTUS is).  So in this context if the POTUS is putting out false information as the owner of Twitter regardless of political affiliation I would correct it or delete it. Though I wouldn’t do that for your average Joe Schmoe.  

 
dkp993 said:
I don’t agree with the Sanders situation, she should have been served.  But if she was screaming at the top of her lungs they’d have cause to boot.  Same with Trump (in this example), he hasn’t been kicked off Twitter and is still being “served”. 
I also think a point that you and I aren’t discussing but is relevant is the responsibility of the POTUS and Twitter(or any Social Media platform) content. I know many around here think it doesn’t matter what he says on there but I disagree wholeheartedly. The POTUS has enormous weight and influence, every word matters (Whomever the POTUS is).  So in this context if the POTUS is putting out false information as the owner of Twitter regardless of political affiliation I would correct it or delete it. Though I wouldn’t do that for your average Joe Schmoe.  
Click to expand...
If you agree with served you have to agree with served equally. You cant put all the blacks in the back. And you cant treat the POTUS any differently than your average Joe. That's discrimination 101. 

 
tonydead said:
If you agree with served you have to agree with served equally. You cant put all the blacks in the back. And you cant treat the POTUS any differently than your average Joe. That's discrimination 101. 
Click to expand...
Fair point but I believe it’s far more nuanced than that.  The POTUS carries a responsibility in his communication that the average Joe doesn’t. The average Joe could be taunting flat earth theory‘s and pizzagate conspiracies, the POTUS carries an obligation not to. You can’t bucket everything together with racial discrimination, context and nuance do factor in.  And whether the POTUS likes it or not they are treated differently than your average Joe. That’s what you sign up for as a leader and that’s not discrimination, that’s accountability. As a leader you’re held to a higher standard, that comes with the territory and is part of what you sign up for. 

 
dkp993 said:
Fair point but I believe it’s far more nuanced than that.  The POTUS carries a responsibility in his communication that the average Joe doesn’t. The average Joe could be taunting flat earth theory‘s and pizzagate conspiracies, the POTUS carries an obligation not to. You can’t bucket everything together with racial discrimination, context and nuance do factor in.  And whether the POTUS likes it or not they are treated differently than your average Joe. That’s what you sign up for as a leader and that’s not discrimination, that’s accountability. As a leader you’re held to a higher standard, that comes with the territory and is part of what you sign up for. 
Click to expand...
Question.  What's your position on other leaders like Maxine Waters saying the Minnesota police killings were due to Trump?  How should something like that be handled?  What responsibility does the news outlet that airs that interview have?  What responsibility does Waters have?  How do we hold her accountable?

 
Oh...and before the usual suspects start posting "well...Trump Lies".....here's the difference:

You cite "Trump's lies" and say that you won't vote for him because of these lies while in office.....yet, you plan on voting for Biden despite his decades of lies while running for, and holding office.

I am citing "Biden's damn lies" and plagiarisms to show the absolute hypocrisy of your statement.

So, when you are listing the reasons you won't be voting for President Trump...do yourselves (and us) a favor and leave "the lies" off the list.

You just look silly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
Oh...and before the usual suspects start posting "Trump Lies".....here's the difference:

You cite "Trump's lies" and say that you won't vote for him because of these lies.....yet, you plan on voting for Biden despite his lies.
I am citing "Biden's damn lies" to show the absolute hypocrisy of your statement.

So, when you are listing the reasons you won't be voting for President Trump...do yourselves (and us) a favor and leave "the lies" off the list.

You just look silly.
Click to expand...
Done and done.

- He’s incompetent

- He’s a race baiter

- He’s a liar

- He’s a sexual predator

- He’s an embarrassment 

 
AAABatteries said:
Done and done.

- He’s incompetent

- He’s a race baiter

- He’s a liar

- He’s a sexual predator

- He’s an embarrassment 
Click to expand...
That's a start....

Lots more on that list that pertains to ol' Stink Finger Joe.....Let's continue...

Shall we start with "sexual predator"?

What was it that Trump said??  "...grab 'em by the ........"?
What was it that Biden's been accused of??  ...grabbing her by the......?

Do I need to post the videos of "Creepy Uncle Joe"?

BTW...It was the WAPO that labeled him "Creepy"...way before he announced for POTUS.
 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
Fair point but I believe it’s far more nuanced than that.  The POTUS carries a responsibility in his communication that the average Joe doesn’t. The average Joe could be taunting flat earth theory‘s and pizzagate conspiracies, the POTUS carries an obligation not to. You can’t bucket everything together with racial discrimination, context and nuance do factor in.  And whether the POTUS likes it or not they are treated differently than your average Joe. That’s what you sign up for as a leader and that’s not discrimination, that’s accountability. As a leader you’re held to a higher standard, that comes with the territory and is part of what you sign up for. 
Click to expand...
Wow, we went from Twitter trying to be the arbiter of truth to enforcer of morality. Have you seen some of the type of stuff Twitter allows?  

 
dkp993 said:
tonydead said:
If you agree with served you have to agree with served equally. You cant put all the blacks in the back. And you cant treat the POTUS any differently than your average Joe. That's discrimination 101. 
Click to expand...
Fair point but I believe it’s far more nuanced than that.  The POTUS carries a responsibility in his communication that the average Joe doesn’t. The average Joe could be taunting flat earth theory‘s and pizzagate conspiracies, the POTUS carries an obligation not to. You can’t bucket everything together with racial discrimination, context and nuance do factor in.  And whether the POTUS likes it or not they are treated differently than your average Joe. That’s what you sign up for as a leader and that’s not discrimination, that’s accountability. As a leader you’re held to a higher standard, that comes with the territory and is part of what you sign up for. 
Click to expand...
At the very least, on the Twitter platform, I think there's a difference between "random Twitter account" and "blue check mark verified Twitter account".  Can we all at least agree that it's legitimate to treat verified accounts different than non-verified accounts, before we get into the discussion on the legitimacy of potentially treating Trump's account differently than "misc. verified Hollywood celeb account"?

 
AAABatteries said:
Done and done.

- He’s incompetent

- He’s a race baiter

- He’s a liar

- He’s a sexual predator

- He’s an embarrassment 
Click to expand...
Everyone please drop this. 

We're not going to use this forum to score points for your side calling Trump a sexual predator. We're not going to use this forum to score points for your side calling Biden a sexual predator. These are not hidden stories. These are serious stories. Both for the accused and obviously for the accuser. We're not going to flippantly throw them out here to take shots at the other side from accounts with anonymous screen names. The internet is full of places to call people things like this all day long. Please do it there.

 
Opie said:
That's a start....

Lots more on that list that pertains to ol' Stink Finger Joe.....Let's continue...

Shall we start with "sexual predator"?

What was it that Trump said??  "...grab 'em by the ........"?
What was it that Biden's been accused of??  ...grabbing her by the......?

Do I need to post the videos of "Creepy Uncle Joe"?

BTW...It was the WAPO that labeled him "Creepy"...way before he announced for POTUS.
 
Click to expand...
Everyone please drop this. 

We're not going to use this forum to score points for your side calling Trump a sexual predator. We're not going to use this forum to score points for your side calling Biden a sexual predator. These are not hidden stories. These are serious stories. Both for the accused and obviously for the accuser. We're not going to flippantly throw them out here to take shots at the other side from accounts with anonymous screen names. The internet is full of places to call people things like this all day long. Please do it there.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Everyone please drop this. 

We're not going to use this forum to score points for your side calling Trump a sexual predator. We're not going to use this forum to score points for your side calling Biden a sexual predator. These are not hidden stories. These are serious stories. Both for the accused and obviously for the accuser. We're not going to flippantly throw them out here to take shots at the other side from accounts with anonymous screen names. The internet is full of places to call people things like this all day long. Please do it there.
Click to expand...
The post was not to call Joe Biden anything.

The pointless goal was to point out the absolute hypocrisy of one side accusing a candidate of something of which their candidate is just as (if not more) guilty.

I am getting pretty sick and tired of the relentless postings that say they won't vote for President Trump because of Accusation A, but will vote for a Biden despite the same accusation being leveled at him....in the "Trump-2020" thread.

You don't want to vote for President Trump because "Orange Man Bad"....then don't.
But don't list the reasons for your decision when Biden is has garnered the exact, same accusations against him

You are absolutely correct....."The internet is full of places to call people things like this all day long"...and so does this forum.
This forum has countless threads where accusations against President Trump are thrown around all day with very little repercussion...but I am pretty sure that #Knowledge Dropper created this thread as a place where those who actually support our president, can post without fighting off the hoard.

Our little bubble inside everyone else's huge bubble.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
The post was not to call Joe Biden anything.

The pointless goal was to point out the absolute hypocrisy of one side accusing a candidate of something of which their candidate is just as (if not more) guilty.

I am getting pretty sick and tired of the relentless postings that say they won't vote for President Trump because of Accusation A, but will vote for a Biden despite the same accusation being leveled at him....in the "Trump-2020" thread.

You don't want to vote for President Trump because "Orange Man Bad"....then don't.
But don't list the reasons for your decision when Biden is has garnered the exact, same accusations against him

You are absolutely correct....."The internet is full of places to call people things like this all day long"...and so does this forum.
This forum has countless threads where accusations against President Trump are thrown around all day with very little repercussion...but I am pretty sure that #Knowledge Dropper created this thread as a place where those who actually support our president, can post without fighting off the hoard.

Our little bubble inside everyone else's huge bubble.
Click to expand...
Great post.

 
tonydead said:
Biden is definitely a huge hypocritical conundrum for democrats.  
Click to expand...
I've said this a few times.  I would rather the left be open and honest and just admit that what Biden is accused of is bad, and they don't like it, but it's anyone but Trump at all costs.  

You have people here who have publicly said they would take a recession over Trump, but are trying to defend Biden.  It is illogical and once again, hypocritical--which is the worst

 
Opie said:
The post was not to call Joe Biden anything.
Click to expand...
Ugh, I've been trying to stay out of this, I even deleted a post about it, but:

  • The info is from a washed up ex blonde bombshell actress with some extreme and disinformed views in other twitter posts.
  • She posts a video with no statement or branding of where it comes from.
  • The video is altered, it's slowed and cut.
  • The voiceover purports to be of an expert who is talking generally, he's not talking about Biden. It's laid over video of Biden to suggest he is, when he is not.
  • The goal of the video/post - by Kristi Swanson - is to convince the viewer not that Biden is a sexual predator, but that he is a pedophile. It's about "grooming" children.
The whole thing is sick and deceptive. I like Widbill, I appreciate him, I enjoy speaking with him and getting his POVs on things. Really not going at him, but this whole exchange is emblematic of the continuing sheer desire to absorb feel-good misinformation and disinformation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ugh, I've been trying to stay out of this, I even deleted a post about it, but:

  • The info is from a washed up ex blonde bombshell actress with some extreme and disinformed views in other twitter posts.
  • She posts a video with no statement or branding of where it comes from.
  • The video is altered, it's slowed and cut.
  • The voiceover purports to be of an expert who is talking generally, he's not talking about Biden. It's laid over video of Biden to suggest he is, when he is not.
  • The goal of the video/post - by Kristi Swanson - is to convince the viewer not that Biden is a sexual predator, but that he is a pedophile. It's about "grooming" children.
The whole thing is sick and deceptive. I like Widbill, I appreciate him, I enjoy speaking with him and getting his POVs on things. Really not going at him, but this whole exchange is emblematic of the continuing sheer desire to absorb feel-good misinformation and disinformation.
Click to expand...
Yeah!

Who'm I gonna believe anyway...

....you...or my lyin' eyes?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
L
McCarthy and McConnell Wanted ‘Son of a B*tch’ Trump Out of Politics After Jan. 6 Riot,
2 3
Replies
124
Views
3K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
457
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 11 (members: 0, guests: 11)
Top