Would cities burn if Trump and Republicans colluded with social media to win?

[bodecea]

How would Democrats handle the situation if the tables were turned?
Have any Democrats openly condemned those who participated yet?

There has been losses for Democrats. Are we calling for insurrection?

 

[BULLDOG]

“Allows “?
Stop being a little bitch. The Republican Party has no need for weaklings like you.

Without weaklings like him, the republican party would still have integrity.

 

[Unkotare]

Without weaklings like him, the republican party would still have integrity.

Weaklings like him are a tiny, noisy minority in the Republican Party, just like that idiot kid here who keeps “guaranteeing “ the future will be communism for everyone is a minority in the other party.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Of course, all patriots will. As patriots, we will stand against any dictatorship.

And DRAIN THE PIG PEN!

 

[Fueri]

View attachment 734124

However what? Weird that you didn't post the follow up to that, which is the crux of the overwhelming bias that was the reality of how this censorship actually was performed.

 

[Marener]

However what? Weird that you didn't post the follow up to that, which is the crux of the overwhelming bias that was the reality of how this censorship actually was performed.

You and Taibbi move the goalposts.

At first they claim that there is a principle of not taking down material as it is against the first amendment.

But the goalposts move to it being okay it just needs to be “unbiased” once the narrative of this being a Democratic Party issue.

Fail.

 

[BULLDOG]

Weaklings like him are a tiny, noisy minority in the Republican Party, just like that idiot kid here who keeps “guaranteeing “ the future will be communism for everyone is a minority in the other party.

A tiny noisy minority that converted republican to MAGA. Traditional republicans are nothing more than a memory.

 

[Unkotare]

A tiny noisy minority that converted republican to MAGA. Traditional republicans are nothing more than a memory.

Nonsense.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

A tiny noisy minority that converted republican to MAGA. Traditional republicans are nothing more than a memory.

A "tiny noisy minority" wiped out an entire political party?








.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nonsense.

Republicans didn't even bother with a platform. Supporting Trump was good enough for them.

 

[BULLDOG]

A "tiny noisy minority" wiped out an entire political party?








.

The repub party has been converted to MAGA Your job to figure out who did it.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

The repub party has been converted to MAGA Your job to figure out who did it.

ULTRAMEGAMAGA! Say it now, bitch!



.

 

[BULLDOG]

ULTRAMEGAMAGA! Say it now, bitch!



.

Ok BITCH

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Ok BITCH

Cleverness FAIL.

Third one today.

Try harder.


.

 

[Fueri]

You and Taibbi move the goalposts.

At first they claim that there is a principle of not taking down material as it is against the first amendment.

But the goalposts move to it being okay it just needs to be “unbiased” once the narrative of this being a Democratic Party issue.

Fail.

I moved nothing. I never said it was OK in any case, as I do not think it is, so it is not my moving shit, it's you erecting a strawman and in the previous post using a lie of omission

 

[Marener]

I moved nothing. I never said it was OK in any case, as I do not think it is, so it is not my moving shit, it's you erecting a strawman and in the previous post using a lie of omission

If you didn’t move the goalposts then you let Taibbi do it for you.

Weird that you didn't post the follow up to that, which is the crux of the overwhelming bias that was the reality of how this censorship actually was performed.

It’s not a lie of omission if you believe that it truly is not okay in any case. I merely highly that these things happened on both sides.

 

[Fueri]

If you didn’t move the goalposts then you let Taibbi do it for you.



It’s not a lie of omission if you believe that it truly is not okay in any case. I merely highly that these things happened on both sides.

I have nothing to do with Taibbi. He did nothing whatsoever for me, nor did I have any role in anything he did or did not do. Trying to somehow tie me into the actions of some internet rando is one of the lamest things I've seen in a while. Total nonsense.

You did not present the full picture, instead attempted to forward that this was happening on both sides and thus, even. The reality, presented in the very next post, is something completely different. You chose not to present the entire picture, colored it by omitting the full picture when you easily could have, and therefore it is absolutely a lie of omission, your attempting now to weasel changes none of that, nor will it.

 

[Marener]

I have nothing to do with Taibbi. He did nothing whatsoever for me, nor did I have any role in anything he did or did not do. Trying to somehow tie me into the actions of some internet rando is one of the lamest things I've seen in a while. Total nonsense.

You did not present the full picture, instead attempted to forward that this was happening on both sides and thus, even. The reality, presented in the very next post, is something completely different. You chose not to present the entire picture, colored it by omitting the full picture when you easily could have, and therefore it is absolutely a lie of omission, your attempting now to weasel changes none of that, nor will it.

What you call “the rest of the picture” isn’t relevant to the point.

I’m not weaseling out of anything because you have not been able to refute the point. You’ve only be deflecting to a different argument you don’t even believe matters.

 

[Fueri]

What you call “the rest of the picture” isn’t relevant to the point.

I’m not weaseling out of anything because you have not been able to refute the point. You’ve only be deflecting to a different argument you don’t even believe matters.

Yes, it very much is. You intentionally presented only the portion of the facts given that support the point you are trying to make.

It is the very definition of a lie of omission, ffs.

Don't tell me what I do and do not believe. You know exactly zip about me, while I already know you are a lying weasel. I do not think the government, in any capacity, or political operatives, in any capacity should be having the direct ability to censor speech. Clear enough for you?

 

[Marener]

Yes, it very much is. You intentionally presented only the portion of the facts given that support the point you are trying to make.

It is the very definition of a lie of omission, ffs.

Don't tell me what I do and do not believe. You know exactly zip about me, while I already know you are a lying weasel. I do not think the government, in any capacity, or political operatives, in any capacity should be having the direct ability to censor speech. Clear enough for you?

No, it isn't. I did intentionally present the portion of the facts that support the point I'm trying to make. If you haven't been paying attention, this was the point I was trying to make:

Trump’s white house did have posts removed from Twitter.

None of you are going to say shit about it though.

Now, you claim that the follow up matters, but it doesn't. Nothing in the follow up change the fact that Trump's White House did have posts removed from Twitter. That's not a lie of omission since the rest of the information isn't relevant.

I don't have to tell you what you believe. You told me yourself. Given that we have proof that Trump's White House censored speech, the question is whether you're going to say shit about it.

So far you're just whining about me mentioning it.