Trump is the Real DEI Candidate

[Marener]

Trump demonstrated what many of us in private industry had suspected for a long, long time: that private sector executive experience - especially that of an entrepreneur - would be very valuable in an executive position in government, even as President.

In the private sector, we know that definitive decisions have to be made and people who don't get with the program need to be gotten rid of promptly. We know that successful negotiation starts from a position of strength, and that it is better to walk away from the negotiating table than to accept a bad deal (American politicians always make bad deals).

We know that every large organization has fat in it, and in a very large organization, up to 20% can be trimmed off without harming the functioning of the organization.

When you look at what Trump accomplished in the face of Democrat opposition and even sabotage, the "Russia, Russia" hoax, the slow-walking of the Deep State, the corruption at DoJ, the Corona Virus, and the full-court press of opposition from the non-Fox Media, you see that he was the best president of at least the past two generations.

And then you have Kamala Harris, a walking mediocrity, chosen solely for her gender and ethnicity, making a complete ass of herself day after day...the contrast is stunning.

Trump, the DEI candidate. Get a fucking brain.

And what did he accomplish exactly?

 

[DBA]

Yet Trump is the only one talking about censorship.

You need to broaden your media sources.

Hillary suggested people should be civilly and even criminally charged for certain social media posts.

John Kerry suggested that the 1st Ammendment is a problem that must be dealt with.

Jean-Pierre is routinely using the “misinformation” buzzword in her press conferences. They desperately want to stop the dissemination of any information they do not agree with.

I know, CNN didn’t tell you.

 

[Marener]

You need to broaden your media sources.

Hillary suggested people should be civilly and even criminally charged for certain social media posts.

John Kerry suggested that the 1st Ammendment is a problem that must be dealt with.

Jean-Pierre is routinely using the “misinformation” buzzword in her press conferences. They desperately want to stop the dissemination of any information they do not agree with.

I know, CNN didn’t tell you.

She said people can in some circumstances be criminally charged for colluding with foreign funding to interfere in the election, which is exactly what we saw with Tenet media.

Kerry said the first amendment is a barrier to stopping disinformation, and didn’t not suggest anything that would inhibit free speech.

Jean-Pierre saying something is disinformation has no bearing on anyone’s ability to speak it. In fact, she has the same first amendment right to call it out as you do to speak it yourself.

I’m ahead of you on all of these. Your dishonest conservative media left out critical context to these instances which is, as you put it, incredibly dangerous.

But again, you wish to avoid acknowledging Trump and MAGA’s desire to attack free speech on ABC, CBS and others.

 

[Old & Independent]

There's only one DEI candidate in this race and it isn't Trump.

 

[Frankenstein]

Yet Trump is the only one talking about censorship.

He now wants 60 minutes investigated because he thinks an interview could somehow be illegal.

This isn’t an isolated incident either. He wanted ABC to be punished by the FCC for engaging in speech he didn’t like.

Meanwhile DeSantis is threatening criminal prosecution of TV stations for airing ads they don’t like.

MAGA is very authoritarian.

Hillary Clinton says social media companies must moderate content or 'we lose total control,' ripped by Tulsi Gabbard​

 

[Marener]

Hillary Clinton says social media companies must moderate content or 'we lose total control,' ripped by Tulsi Gabbard​

Yeah, they should moderate content.

We’ve seen what happens when social media gets out of control. Shit gets crazy.

 

[DBA]

She said people can in some circumstances be criminally charged for colluding with foreign funding to interfere in the election, which is exactly what we saw with Tenet media.

Kerry said the first amendment is a barrier to stopping disinformation, and didn’t not suggest anything that would inhibit free speech.

Jean-Pierre saying something is disinformation has no bearing on anyone’s ability to speak it. In fact, she has the same first amendment right to call it out as you do to speak it yourself.

I’m ahead of you on all of these. Your dishonest conservative media left out critical context to these instances which is, as you put it, incredibly dangerous.

But again, you wish to avoid acknowledging Trump and MAGA’s desire to attack free speech on ABC, CBS and others.

Honestly you can't be helped. You have excuses for literally everything. For example, Kerry called the first amendment a "major block" in keeping people from believing what he thinks they should believe. In the same speech he said "Democracies around the world now are struggling with the absence of a sort of truth arbiter, and there’s no one who defines what facts really are." It sures seems like he is implying that we need a truth arbiter to determine what should and should not be considered the truth. Would CNN's misquotes of Trump be considered truthful? Many were actual quotes so are truthful in the sense that weren't completely fabricated, but when take out of context they become less truthful. The WEF, where Kerry made his remarks, is full of globalists who love this kind of talk because they would love nothing more than to be the arbiters of truth.

Despite what he and many other Democrats have said, you fail to see that it is YOUR party that supports this arbitration of what they consider the truth, not Republicans.

 

[Marener]

Honestly you can't be helped. You have excuses for literally everything. For example, Kerry called the first amendment a "major block" in keeping people from believing what he thinks they should believe. In the same speech he said "Democracies around the world now are struggling with the absence of a sort of truth arbiter, and there’s no one who defines what facts really are." It sures seems like he is implying that we need a truth arbiter to determine what should and should not be considered the truth. Would CNN's misquotes of Trump be considered truthful? Many were actual quotes so are truthful in the sense that weren't completely fabricated, but when take out of context they become less truthful. The WEF, where Kerry made his remarks, is full of globalists who love this kind of talk because they would love nothing more than to be the arbiters of truth.

Despite what he and many other Democrats have said, you fail to see that it is YOUR party that supports this arbitration of what they consider the truth, not Republicans.

You took Kerry’s statements out of context and now had to walk it back to say he “implied” something. Sure. You are welcome to your opinion of what he implied, but since it’s an opinion it’s neither true nor false.

I didn’t make an excuse, I am pointing out that your assertion lacked context which is supposedly dangerous.

If that’s an excuse to you, so be it.

Whereas you don’t make excuses, you just ignore. Trump is on record calling for investigations and repercussions for ABC and CBS. You don’t make excuses for this, you just ignore it.