Cont: Trump et al continued “2020 election” conspiracy theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubba said:
Explain how it is not possible, if not likely, that an East Coast Elite college kid, after becoming a cia intern, is invited to stay on as a 'plainclothes' agent.

We know that Julia Childs and a few A-list hollywood actors were recruited by US intelligence. Those are just the ones we know of.

Elites and celebrities are more useful in many ways...access to higher levels where info can be gathered. I do not believe this needs explaining.

I cannot believe you dont get it, so I can only think that you are intentionally being obtuse.
Click to expand...

Dude, seriously, as safely as you can, get out of your basement. The world just doesn't work this way.
 
Bubba said:
By Betsy McCaughey
Big Tech, which is run by the left, is robbing Americans of their right to communicate freely and exchange ideas.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Everyone in America can communicate as freely as they like with whomever they like, and Big Tech cannot stop them. They can use a telephone, or a smartphone. They can use email, or WhatsApp, or Messenger or Viber. If they want to communicate to a wider range of like-minded people they can use email lists, or multi-messaging or go old school and publish a newsletter.

You seem to have this idea that you have a right to a Facebook account, or a Twitter account or an Instagram account. You don't. You have these accounts at the behest of the platform owners, and you have to comply with their rules.

Take Craig4's advice and get out of the basement before the rabbit hole consumes you entirely.
 
Bubba said:
Their remedy was the First Amendment, guaranteeing all of us freedom of speech and association and barring government censorship. They had no way of anticipating that tech companies would grow more powerful than governments and have the monopolistic ability to suppress or cancel political viewpoints.
Click to expand...

On the one hand, it is concerning that a company like Twitter controls access to so much public discourse nowadays.

On the other hand, I wonder how is this really very different from the situation just a few years ago, where large companies (hello, News Limited!) owned newspapers, radio stations, television stations and even movie studios? There was absolutely no right of access then. Murdoch and his minions decided what news to publish, and who was allowed to provide comments on the news of the day. You could write all the letters you liked to the editor, but there was no guarantee at all that any of your letters would be published.

Back then - just a decade or two ago - the only way to get your voice heard was to print and hand out flyers, or to stand on a box at speaker's corner and shout at passers-by.

Nowadays, you can start a blog, get a page on Medium or Substack, make a YouTube channel, join Tik Tok, or get yourself heard in a myriad of other ways.

Yes, Twitter and other such companies are influential but I think that people often ignore just how many different ways individuals can now make themselves heard, compared to just a few short years ago. When talking about tech companies, many people also seem to forget - perhaps deliberately - just how much power and influence traditional media companies had (and still have).
 
Jhau said:
...snip....

Yes, Twitter and other such companies are influential but I think that people often ignore just how many different ways individuals can now make themselves heard, compared to just a few short years ago. When talking about tech companies, many people also seem to forget - perhaps deliberately - just how much power and influence traditional media companies had (and still have).
Click to expand...

That’s a fact that is often overlooked. We - the general public - have never had so much opportunity to put forward our views, opinions and arguments. That was an opportunity that used to be only given to a very few people - publishers and their employees on their behalf and governments.
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
I think you know that they and many social media are private businesses whose reason for being is to be like a town square where people meet, gather, and talk.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make them any less private. A restaurant is a place open to the public where people can gather and interact much as they would in a publicly owned setting. But if a patron harasses other guests, makes a mess, damages the furniture and generally makes an ass of himself, then the owner of the restaurant has every right to tell him he isn't welcome back.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
I used to research South Indian communist parties.

The Revolutionary Marxists hated the weak Marxist-Leninists, who hated the Maoists who really hated the Stalinist communists, but not as much as the New Maoists or the South Indian Leninists who wanted to join the North Indian Maoist-Leninists. and get revenge against the Socialist Marxists and the Democratic Socialist Communists. :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communist_parties_in_India
Click to expand...

What about the Judean People's Front?
 
Bubba said:
Explain how it is not possible, if not likely, that an East Coast Elite college kid, after becoming a cia intern, is invited to stay on as a 'plainclothes' agent.

We know that Julia Childs and a few A-list hollywood actors were recruited by US intelligence. Those are just the ones we know of.

Elites and celebrities are more useful in many ways...access to higher levels where info can be gathered. I do not believe this needs explaining.

I cannot believe you dont get it, so I can only think that you are intentionally being obtuse.
Click to expand...

Yep. The CIA lost its greatest undercover assassin when Chuck Barris checked out. :(
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
Explain how it is not possible, if not likely, that an East Coast Elite college kid, after becoming a cia intern, is invited to stay on as a 'plainclothes' agent.
Click to expand...
I'm not asking you if it's possible, I'm asking you for actual evidence. It's possible that you are a serial killer. But saying something is possible isn't the same as proving it.

We know that Julia Childs and a few A-list hollywood actors were recruited by US intelligence. Those are just the ones we know of.
Click to expand...
Did you even read about Child's employment with OSS during WWII? You seem to have the simplistic notion that everyone who works for the CIA in any capacity, even in a summer internship, should be assumed to be in the middle of a John le Carré novel. I have a friend who did a summer internship with NASA almost thirty years ago, and he's never been an astronaut.

Elites and celebrities are more useful in many ways...access to higher levels where info can be gathered. I do not believe this needs explaining.
Click to expand...
It's funny how much that statement reminds me of the plot of Team America: World Police. While it's true that well-connected people can often have relationships that may provide useful intelligence, the vast majority of real ground-work in espionage is done by people who are deliberately low-profile.

I cannot believe you dont get it, so I can only think that you are intentionally being obtuse.
Click to expand...
No, I get what you're saying. I just think it's incredibly silly. You live in a cartoonish fantasy world. This will be proved next Thursday when you don't come back to say that you were wrong and misled, but instead offer some new B-movie plot twist explaining how this is still all part of the genius Trump's grand scheme to create the alt-right Utopia and eliminate all the evil parties who oppose him.
 
smartcooky said:
You seem to have this idea that you have a right to a Facebook account, or a Twitter account or an Instagram account. You don't. You have these accounts at the behest of the platform owners, and you have to comply with their rules.
Click to expand...

He knows this. What he is arguing for is that is that is should be a right. He wants these companies to not be able to police their own property. It's ridiculous.
 
RolandRat said:
He knows this. What he is arguing for is that is that is should be a right. He wants these companies to not be able to police their own property. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Funny that a publicly owned service of that sort is something the Republicans have been fighting against tooth and nail.
 
RolandRat said:
He knows this. What he is arguing for is that is that is should be a right. He wants these companies to not be able to police their own property. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Indeed, butthurt Republicans think these private companies should be forced to publish others' statements that might make them the target of violence, alienate their other customers, and reduce their profits. But that's right in line with the law that forces bakeries to make wedding cakes for everyone, even if they have a religious objection to it.

Oh, wait...
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed, butthurt Republicans think these private companies should be forced to publish others' statements that might make them the target of violence, alienate their other customers, and reduce their profits. But that's right in line with the law that forces bakeries to make wedding cakes for everyone, even if they have a religious objection to it.



Oh, wait...
Click to expand...

While the sentiment is satisfying, it isn't "in line."

One is bigotry based on immutable quality and the other is based on documented behavior which violates written rules that were agreed to.
 
Foster Zygote said:
... explaining how this is still all part of the genius Trump's grand scheme to create the alt-right Utopia and eliminate all the evil parties who oppose him.
Click to expand...

The only possible explanation is that Q is looking forward to the 2024 election and Trumps 2nd term. All those thing will happen THEN.

Simples that gives T-rectum eight years to accomplish it all.
 
RolandRat said:
He knows this. What he is arguing for is that is that is should be a right. He wants these companies to not be able to police their own property. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Not quite.

Their 'policing' is a joke. Their reasons for censoring are mostly lies 'for the safety of the community' This about fairness. The socials censoring is 100% politicized, but claiming they are not.


I can only conclude you're either unaware of the hypocrisy and double standards social media apply to voices they dislike, or that you approve of it, which of course is the case as their censorship targeted the election, 100%
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom