Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
knowledge dropper

TRUMP 2020 HQ - The Great Place

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, tonydead said:

By all means, let's use this thread to sort out each other junks email.  wtf

So I got an email from a Nigerian prince, he’s in a bit of a spot and doesn’t have access to his money right now. Should I help him out with a short term loan?  He says he’ll pay me back 10x. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, tonydead said:

By all means, let's use this thread to sort out each other junks email.  wtf

Their pinning of millions of coronavirus deaths on Don isn’t panning out so here we are, :fishing: the Trump thread. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Townhall

Perhaps you used to comment on their message boards like I did years ago and they still got your email address (although I don't recall them ever sending me anything). Or you were on some list of email addresses that changed hands numerous times that Townhall got hold of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Ok I was asking you about a question of principle which is easy for any conservative - no, it's not legal for a president to censor or shut down publishers in our American, democratic system. I don't think I have to remind you of Tom Paine, and yes I suppose if Paine allowed people to use his press (which he did) he'd be well fit and entitled - as was his right - to edit their work before he did so.

Your point is a different one though, and really I kind of agree, though I am not sure why you bring up fellow Americans. What about falsehoods by China and various other handles from various adversaries around the world? I do think it's a lot of work, bound to lead to inconsistencies and generally fraught with peril. But it is their right to do what they will with their property and their free press.

Absolutely agree. But like most institutions (FBI, IRS, EDU) that the Democrat Party has corrupted, they have also completely corrupted these social media platforms.

I remember asking the question in the Liz Warren thread last year, why on earth is she campaignIng on breaking up Twitter and Facebook when these people are on her side? It made no sense to anybody at the time really. Looking back now it was just to intimidate these platforms and manipulate them into going after the other side.
 

Now suddenly we have the first fact check in Twitter history against Trump. Nothing on Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Corn Pop, AOC, Swalwell, Brennan, Comey, Clapper or any other Democrat who lies daily.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I just got an email: 

We’re surprising President Trump with a birthday card and we want YOU to sign. 
 

Yeah that would surprise him, all right. Why did I get this email? 

I have received that email in both my inboxes recently. I was also puzzled as to how they got my info and why they chose my emails. 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

I remember asking the question in the Liz Warren thread last year, why on earth is she campaignIng on breaking up Twitter and Facebook when these people are on her side? It made no sense to anybody at the time really. Looking back now it was just to intimidate these platforms and manipulate them into going after the other side.

Thanks for the comments, and I just want to specifically agree on this point. I’m not sure about the motive (I mean I don’t know) but yes it could have that effect which is part of the problem.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

3 questions for supporters-

1. Do you think Joe Scarborough murdered anyone?

2. Do you think it’s right for the president to comment on this in light of her widowed husbands response?

3. Do you think it’s ok to use the power of the presidency to regulate social media platforms so people can spread misinformation (such as a conspiracy theory about Joe Scarborough)?

Edited by Snorkelson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

3 questions for supporters-

1. Do you think Joe Scarborough murdered anyone?

2. Do you think it’s right for the president to comment on this in light of her widowed husbands response?

3. Do you think it’s ok to use the power of the presidency to regulate social media platforms so people can spread misinformation (such as a conspiracy theory about Joe Scarborough)?

1) I don't know

2) Doesn't matter what the widow says.  Murder is murder.  If Joe DID do it, her comments, feelings etc are irrelevant

3) No.  However the President is not trying to "regulate" social media.   And misinformation is more prevalent on social media than real information, that has nothing to do with the President and will never change...ever

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

3 questions for supporters-

1. Do you think Joe Scarborough murdered anyone?

2. Do you think it’s right for the president to comment on this in light of her widowed husbands response?

3. Do you think it’s ok to use the power of the presidency to regulate social media platforms so people can spread misinformation (such as a conspiracy theory about Joe Scarborough)?

1. Don't know

2. Don't care

3. About as much as I believe that social media should not show political bias by blocking opinions and posts that are contrary to their ideology. 
I sure didn't hear of social media blocking the misinformation of Russian collusion and the President being a Russian asset.

....and...every post that promoted this, was indeed, lies and misinformation.

Edited by Opie
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snorkelson said:

3 questions for supporters-

1. Do you think Joe Scarborough murdered anyone?

2. Do you think it’s right for the president to comment on this in light of her widowed husbands response?

3. Do you think it’s ok to use the power of the presidency to regulate social media platforms so people can spread misinformation (such as a conspiracy theory about Joe Scarborough)?

1.  Don't know.  

2.  I would probably offer a private apology to the widower and not make any further public comments on it. 

3.  He shouldn't act by EO here, he should have the legislature make the changes.  However, I also agree with Mark Zuckerberg that Twitter should not act as the "arbiter of truth".  If they want to, then their protections under Section 230 should be removed and they should be liable for all the content on their platform.  If they want to go down that path, God bless em.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

With Trump’s Executive Order about ready to drop, should one of us start printing the Russia thread?

:towelwave:Could this be the end of biased moderation and disappearing posts in here?

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tonydead said:

:towelwave:Could this be the end of biased moderation and disappearing posts in here?

Can we get monetary damages or do the ones peddling falsehoods and website owners get popped?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, supermike80 said:

1) I don't know

2) Doesn't matter what the widow says.  Murder is murder.  If Joe DID do it, her comments, feelings etc are irrelevant

3) No.  However the President is not trying to "regulate" social media.   And misinformation is more prevalent on social media than real information, that has nothing to do with the President and will never change...ever

1. There is evidence to the contrary, autopsy, etc.

2. The widow here is her husband, it’s his feelings I’m talking about. If there is no evidence that there was an affair or a murder, do you care how he might feel about having his wife’s name used to disparage a critic?

3. I guess we’ll see what he has planned with his eo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:
30 minutes ago, tonydead said:

:towelwave:Could this be the end of biased moderation and disappearing posts in here?

Can we get monetary damages or do the ones peddling falsehoods and website owners get popped?

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.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The scenario that Democrats are Dreading.....(Politico 05/26/2020)

"In early April, Jason Furman, a top economist in the Obama administration and now a professor at Harvard, was speaking via Zoom to a large bipartisan group of top officials from both parties. The economy had just been shut down, unemployment was spiking and some policymakers were predicting an era worse than the Great Depression. The economic carnage seemed likely to doom President Donald Trump’s chances at reelection.

“We are about to see the best economic data we’ve seen in the history of this country,” he said.

The former Cabinet secretaries and Federal Reserve chairs in the Zoom boxes were confused, though some of the Republicans may have been newly relieved and some of the Democrats suddenly concerned.

“Everyone looked puzzled and thought I had misspoken,” Furman said in an interview. Instead of forecasting a prolonged Depression-level economic catastrophe, Furman laid out a detailed case for why the months preceding the November election could offer Trump the chance to brag — truthfully — about the most explosive monthly employment numbers and gross domestic product growth ever.

Since the Zoom call, Furman has been making the same case to anyone who will listen, especially the close-knit network of Democratic wonks who have traversed the Clinton and Obama administrations together, including top members of the Biden campaign.

Furman’s counter intuitive pitch has caused some Democrats, especially Obama alumni, around Washington to panic. “This is my big worry,” said a former Obama White House official who is still close to the former president. Asked about the level of concern among top party officials, he said, “It’s high — high, high, high, high.

.... Trump could be poised to benefit from the dramatic numbers produced during the partial rebound phase that is likely to coincide with the four months before November.

That realization has many Democrats spooked."

 

...seriously...the Democrats are "spooked" by the idea that things may get better ?
THAT's the Democrat Party!

Edited by Opie
  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Opie said:

The scenario that Democrats are Dreading.....(Politico 05/26/2020)

"In early April, Jason Furman, a top economist in the Obama administration and now a professor at Harvard, was speaking via Zoom to a large bipartisan group of top officials from both parties. The economy had just been shut down, unemployment was spiking and some policymakers were predicting an era worse than the Great Depression. The economic carnage seemed likely to doom President Donald Trump’s chances at reelection.

“We are about to see the best economic data we’ve seen in the history of this country,” he said.

The former Cabinet secretaries and Federal Reserve chairs in the Zoom boxes were confused, though some of the Republicans may have been newly relieved and some of the Democrats suddenly concerned.

“Everyone looked puzzled and thought I had misspoken,” Furman said in an interview. Instead of forecasting a prolonged Depression-level economic catastrophe, Furman laid out a detailed case for why the months preceding the November election could offer Trump the chance to brag — truthfully — about the most explosive monthly employment numbers and gross domestic product growth ever.

Since the Zoom call, Furman has been making the same case to anyone who will listen, especially the close-knit network of Democratic wonks who have traversed the Clinton and Obama administrations together, including top members of the Biden campaign.

Furman’s counter intuitive pitch has caused some Democrats, especially Obama alumni, around Washington to panic. “This is my big worry,” said a former Obama White House official who is still close to the former president. Asked about the level of concern among top party officials, he said, “It’s high — high, high, high, high.

.... Trump could be poised to benefit from the dramatic numbers produced during the partial rebound phase that is likely to coincide with the four months before November.

That realization has many Democrats spooked."

 

...seriously...the Democrats are "spooked" by the idea that things may get better ?
THAT's the Democrat Party!

Not surprising.  Over half of the PSF Resistance voted for more Chinese Virus and business failure over Trump bring re-elected.  

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

Not surprising.  Over half of the PSF Resistance voted for more Chinese Virus and business failure over Trump bring re-elected.  

That is a misinterpretation of the results of a poll with some serious methodology issues IMHO. One had to accept a hypothetical based on premises that they may not have agreed with.  It was an interesting discussion, but I felt the poll itself was flawed, so I don't think one could draw any meaningful conclusions about what those who are not planning to vote for Trump would really want (like more deaths and an economic collapse over reelection). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

That is a misinterpretation of the results of a poll with some serious methodology issues IMHO. One had to accept a hypothetical based on premises that they may not have agreed with.  It was an interesting discussion, but I felt the poll itself was flawed, so I don't think one could draw any meaningful conclusions about what those who are not planning to vote for Trump would really want (like more deaths and an economic collapse over reelection). 

:shrug:

If the poll was flawed, there was always the option to not vote.  The fact is we have some tormented souls in this forum that selected death and misery over Trump.  No sugarcoating needed.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

:shrug:

If the poll was flawed, there was always the option to not vote.  The fact is we have some tormented souls in this forum that selected death and misery over Trump.  No sugarcoating needed.  

Abstaining was not listed among the choices so that was not an option if one wanted to see the results. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, squistion said:

Abstaining was not listed among the choices so that was not an option if one wanted to see the results. 

Just vote to see results.  That’s what I did.  

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

:shrug:

If the poll was flawed, there was always the option to not vote.  The fact is we have some tormented souls in this forum that selected death and misery over Trump.  No sugarcoating needed.  

A second term of Trump for many would be just as bad as living through the virus. We'd lose a lot but we might still have some semblence of a functioning democracy. :shrug: With no shackles and we saw the corruption, lawlessness, wrecking of democratic institutions. He's just that bad for many. I mean the dude is REALLY bad. And seems to be getting worse cognitively, impulse control etc. He's got all his toadies around him now. A compliant senate. Carte Blanche. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, knowledge dropper said:

Just vote to see results.  That’s what I did.  

But that warps the poll results. How many of those who voted for the option you claim shows they want more deaths and an economic collapse, did so only because they wanted to see the results? Joe meant well but the poll was not well thought out IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

3 questions for supporters-

1. Do you think Joe Scarborough murdered anyone?

2. Do you think it’s right for the president to comment on this in light of her widowed husbands response?

3. Do you think it’s ok to use the power of the presidency to regulate social media platforms so people can spread misinformation (such as a conspiracy theory about Joe Scarborough)?

1 - Don't know.

2 - Don't care.

3 - If twitter and facebook disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow the world would be a much much better place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, squistion said:

 One had to accept a hypothetical based on premises that they may not have agreed with.  

That's what a hypothetical is.  HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

A second term of Trump for many would be just as bad as living through the virus. We'd lose a lot but we might still have some semblence of a functioning democracy. :shrug: With no shackles and we saw the corruption, lawlessness, wrecking of democratic institutions. He's just that bad for many. I mean the dude is REALLY bad. And seems to be getting worse cognitively, impulse control etc. He's got all his toadies around him now. A compliant senate. Carte Blanche. 

Sounds pretty swell to me

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, squistion said:

But that warps the poll results. How many of those who voted for the option you claim shows they want more deaths and an economic collapse, did so only because they wanted to see the results? Joe meant well but the poll was not well thought out IMO.

I think it was a great question and hypothetical.  They only people who have a problem with it are the ones that don't want to provide an honest answer to the question.  Case in point, you.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

A second term of Trump for many would be just as bad as living through the virus. We'd lose a lot but we might still have some semblence of a functioning democracy. :shrug: With no shackles and we saw the corruption, lawlessness, wrecking of democratic institutions. He's just that bad for many. I mean the dude is REALLY bad. And seems to be getting worse cognitively, impulse control etc. He's got all his toadies around him now. A compliant senate. Carte Blanche. 

C'mon now.  Anybody choosing Biden over Trump based on cognitive ability isn't being very honest with themselves.   Wow man.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

A second term of Trump for many would be just as bad as living through the virus. We'd lose a lot but we might still have some semblence of a functioning democracy. :shrug: With no shackles and we saw the corruption, lawlessness, wrecking of democratic institutions. He's just that bad for many. I mean the dude is REALLY bad. And seems to be getting worse cognitively, impulse control etc. He's got all his toadies around him now. A compliant senate. Carte Blanche. 

In your opinion...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

That is a misinterpretation of the results of a poll with some serious methodology issues IMHO. One had to accept a hypothetical based on premises that they may not have agreed with.  It was an interesting discussion, but I felt the poll itself was flawed, so I don't think one could draw any meaningful conclusions about what those who are not planning to vote for Trump would really want (like more deaths and an economic collapse over reelection). 

That's why I refused to vote in Joe's poorly thought out, embarrassing polls. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

A second term of Trump for many would be just as bad as living through the virus. We'd lose a lot but we might still have some semblence of a functioning democracy. :shrug: With no shackles and we saw the corruption, lawlessness, wrecking of democratic institutions. He's just that bad for many. I mean the dude is REALLY bad. And seems to be getting worse cognitively, impulse control etc. He's got all his toadies around him now. A compliant senate. Carte Blanche. 

So sir, how many Americans should die living through this virus so we can still have some of this "semblance of a functioning democracy"  you so desperately crave and feel we are lacking?  Are you willing to sacrifice some or all of your family to the virus in order to not have Trump re-elected?  

I honestly was absolutely shocked at how many people on this board were perfectly happy with a recession or a continuation of the virus in order to not have Trump.  Hard to believe their obsession has reached this level. The utter contempt for the lives of others in order to not have a guy who they don't like just blew me away.

I seriously wonder how many would actually be willing to sacrifice the lives of people they know...Maybe not immediate family, but close enough to count, in order to not have Trump for 4 more years.

If you had asked me that question a week ago I would say it's not possible...Now, I am wondering just how deep this hatred and obsession goes.  

Edited by supermike80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transparency

I think my favorite part is that they are still on track to do an October forecast when they think/hope the numbers will look better for them. Business as usual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonydead said:

1 - Don't know.

2 - Don't care.

3 - If twitter and facebook disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow the world would be a much much better place.

If twitter disappeared how would Squissy handle it?

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 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.  

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Blutarsky said:

If twitter disappeared how would Squissy handle it?

:missing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, 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.

 

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. 

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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. 

Private businesses have the right to run their websites as they feel fit. Anything else could be considered socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leroy Hoard said:

How would Trump? Somehow that seems like a more important question.

Guessing those two would be about the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leroy Hoard said:

How would Trump? Somehow that seems like a more important question.

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.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, squistion said:

 but the media is so dishonest that I need it.

He isn't wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

I hate it but I need it.  LMFAO.

You can't make this stuff up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Max Power said:

He isn't wrong.

Yet you see zero irony about a dishonest guy being upset about dishonesty?  You seem like a really smart guy, I’m having trouble believing you don’t see that.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, 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.

Please follow one of the thread rules and keep acosta out of here

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Yet you see zero irony about a dishonest guy being upset about dishonesty?  You seem like a really smart guy, I’m having trouble believing you don’t see that.  

I get it, but I'm pointing out that Trump isnt wrong in that sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 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. 

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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.  

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.