I was going to post this in the social media thread in the general discussion forum, but this goes much further than that. If it continues unchallenged, this country is done.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Free Speech
- Thread starter flenser
- Start date
It's very conserning. It's one thing to not cover a story. But censoring it is totally different. It's obvious some in the media have an explicit bias. It's a dangerous trend, and Id say even anti American. Big tech is becoming the arbiter of what we can see, hear, buy, and soon think and feel. A lot of people are getting banned, censored, and removed if the don't follow the "official" narrative. I've seen a lot of references to the novel 1984 lately, but not in this regard.
Last edited:
I don't think we're there yet, but the trend is in that direction. I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of states break away and declare independence. The left is more likely to try it which makes me want Trump to win. I think he would let them go without violence.
hfo369
New Member
They removed the video
Censorship is definitely getting worse here. I used to talk a lot of shit on FB and have been banned many times for many months. I took a step back and all but stopped posting and the bans ceased.
The other day, I got into a pissing match with a liberal over Trump. I didn't say anything that was really offensive or ban worthy but FB went back though my history from the past year or more and found something that violated their terms of service and handed me a short ban.
The kicker was, they refused to tell me what I was being banned for. Refused to show the post that was unacceptable to them.
Basically, as soon as I posted some pro Trump rhetoric, they banned me over some old bs.
My little brother was less lucky than myself. He posts a lot of dumb shit and they gave him about 70 days of bans for old shit, most of which they didn't show him either.
FB has colluded with the Democrats to influence our elections more than the Russians could have ever dreamed of.
The other day, I got into a pissing match with a liberal over Trump. I didn't say anything that was really offensive or ban worthy but FB went back though my history from the past year or more and found something that violated their terms of service and handed me a short ban.
The kicker was, they refused to tell me what I was being banned for. Refused to show the post that was unacceptable to them.
Basically, as soon as I posted some pro Trump rhetoric, they banned me over some old bs.
My little brother was less lucky than myself. He posts a lot of dumb shit and they gave him about 70 days of bans for old shit, most of which they didn't show him either.
FB has colluded with the Democrats to influence our elections more than the Russians could have ever dreamed of.
It was still working for me a few minutes ago...
hfo369
New Member
Weird bro. I use the duck duck go browser. The video plays right away for me. Doesn't say anything about FB. 
FB, like other social media is using a banning system that's based on the reader as well as the poster. They call it shadow banning, and the descriptions I've read do not do it justice. Since I run multiple "personalities", aka trolls, on several platforms, I've seen first hand that some users can see posts that other users are denied.
abdul muta'alee
Banned
What you have today is not really news that anyone needs to know, it's just tabloid sensational bullshit. It's a fantastic way for media to get views and advertising dollars.
Free speech doesn't exist in this country. The only place you can truly have free speech is if you're standing in some place where no one can hear you as you talk to yourself. Otherwise you will always be judged for everything you communicate to others.
As for these platforms favoring political parties. We are on the edge of needing major overhauls to a system that isn't working for masses of people. Freedom is extremely important, but both parties support a police state, both have set up a supreme court that always sides with the governments ever growing power and those that enforce these rules with immunity.
Mostly Americans need to become skeptical instead of looking for news that supports their views. So many Americans are easily duped, they never ask why they believe something, they never try to deconstruct everything they believe and realize it's all bullshit.
And no one should ever allow one person to have the power of a POTUS, putting someone like Trump or Biden in control is stupid, these are senile old fools, these are the type of people you take the car keys away because they might kill someone.
Lets be honest, Trump has mastered the art of propaganda, he's a con artist, born to a rich family, inherited $400 million, bankrupted his business 4 times, brings his family of conartists into the WH and lets them fuck around with this country. This shit has to stop eventually we can't keep letting these legacy twats run this country, Bushes, Clintons, Trumps. The entire country both State and Federal are run by sleazebags, slimy fucks.
You ask about Free Speech....Trump said you should get a year of incarceration and be deported for burning the American flag. That's about as anti-free speech as you can get.
Free speech doesn't exist in this country. The only place you can truly have free speech is if you're standing in some place where no one can hear you as you talk to yourself. Otherwise you will always be judged for everything you communicate to others.
As for these platforms favoring political parties. We are on the edge of needing major overhauls to a system that isn't working for masses of people. Freedom is extremely important, but both parties support a police state, both have set up a supreme court that always sides with the governments ever growing power and those that enforce these rules with immunity.
Mostly Americans need to become skeptical instead of looking for news that supports their views. So many Americans are easily duped, they never ask why they believe something, they never try to deconstruct everything they believe and realize it's all bullshit.
And no one should ever allow one person to have the power of a POTUS, putting someone like Trump or Biden in control is stupid, these are senile old fools, these are the type of people you take the car keys away because they might kill someone.
Lets be honest, Trump has mastered the art of propaganda, he's a con artist, born to a rich family, inherited $400 million, bankrupted his business 4 times, brings his family of conartists into the WH and lets them fuck around with this country. This shit has to stop eventually we can't keep letting these legacy twats run this country, Bushes, Clintons, Trumps. The entire country both State and Federal are run by sleazebags, slimy fucks.
You ask about Free Speech....Trump said you should get a year of incarceration and be deported for burning the American flag. That's about as anti-free speech as you can get.
Interesting choice of new names.
News organizations have always been biased. I have no problem with that. Neither do I have a problem with private social media companies censoring their users. But those companies are no longer private, if they ever were. They have become little more than appendages of the rising US police state, so embedded it's difficult at times to determine which is in control.
As far as Americans choosing to read material counter to their personal views, don't hold your breath. And it's all people, not just Americans.
abdul muta'alee
Banned
The country will be fine regardless of what happens. Too many people think their lives depend on who's in office. Sure change is coming, but you'll just have to work with it.
Our constitution and law are like religion, they will eventually fade to dust because they don't serve the purpose of the people. It's high time we worry not about carrying out the wishes of a document like it were scripture, and get down to the hard work of fixing problems by undoing what that document has allowed to be done, which is basically bend society to the will of authority.
People want to be free, but they will never be free with mountains of laws that have been created by arrogant smug assholes creating a rigged system.
One thing is certain, Trump doesn't represent freedom, neither does Biden.
Our constitution and law are like religion, they will eventually fade to dust because they don't serve the purpose of the people. It's high time we worry not about carrying out the wishes of a document like it were scripture, and get down to the hard work of fixing problems by undoing what that document has allowed to be done, which is basically bend society to the will of authority.
People want to be free, but they will never be free with mountains of laws that have been created by arrogant smug assholes creating a rigged system.
One thing is certain, Trump doesn't represent freedom, neither does Biden.
The left and right would separate. And when the left completely destroys its bounty, eviscerates its economy and denies basic human rights to its subjects in their territory they then would blame the right.
The media and the left has been in bed with each other for a long time. Its not really news. But propoganda. Trump is right, it is so often fake news. And i admire his courage to criticize the obviously corrupt left wing arm of the democratic party known as big tech and the media. Its not so much of a political thing either. Any American that bleeds and breathes should be concerned about this. Because JOURNALISM exists to keep the ones in the powerful seats honest and in check. This has been compromised. These hacks need to be fired and publically humuliated. And most should feel dumb as a box of rocks for being spoon fed lies and propoganda. But no, no. They are self righteous in their own bullshit. Like a pig in its own shit
Then they would bring their left leaning views to right leaning states, and begin influencing those elections.
The media and governments have been doing this since long before either of us were born, probably started a couple of weeks after paper was invented if not before. Your description of why journalism exists was probably one of their earliest propaganda schemes : )
Put a fuckin wall up. Complete separation. We get Texas. Thats the only rule. Practice your failed policies and socialist agenda on the other side of our border. And when their far left occupied states are all facing 40% unemployment, territories are on fire, crime rate is thru the roof and no one feels like doing anything(because free shit is apparantly their thing) they can all eat each other. Nothing like the truth that hurts
A good example of how the left flip flopped on free speech over the years. Fair warning to those prone to butt hurt, David Cole is a racist.
November 3rd…election day. There’s not much a man of my years can do at a time like this but think back to elections past. And at the moment I’m thinking of Friday, November 4th, 1988, four days before America had the privilege of choosing between two of the most uninspiring bowls of soggy Minute Rice to ever face off on the national stage.
During campaign season, the media had focused most of its fury on poor Dan Quayle, Bush’s marble-mouthed Spoonerist VP choice. Quayle, a social conservative, hit all the right “culture war” buttons, and the left responded with the predictability of piano-pecking chickens. Quayle was a racist, anti-Semitic, misogynist, homophobic fascist. And dumb, too! Oh, and his wife is ugly (Bill Maher shot a film in which he pretended to beat Quayle’s wife, Marilyn, to a bloody pulp, because, um, comedy?).
Having failed at all the usual slurs, and growing despondent over the baffling lethargy on the part of their candidate Michael Dukakis, Democrats and their media toads began grasping at straws. And they caught hold of one. On November 4th, reporters received the tip of a lifetime: A federal prison inmate in Oklahoma claimed that he’d sold pot to Dan Quayle when the VP candidate was in law school in 1972!
A devastating accusation: A dude smoked a joint in college. Surely this would be the silver bullet to fell the Bush/Quayle juggernaut.
The claim was being made by Brett Kimberlin, a young fellow serving a 50-year sentence whose only crime had been conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. Oh, and possession and illegal use of a Department of Defense insignia, illegal use of the Seal of the President of the United States, and impersonation of a federal officer. Oh, and perjury. Oh, and a series of serial bombings that terrorized Indiana in 1978 (one bomb blew the leg off a Vietnam vet who later committed suicide due to his injuries). So surely this Kimberlin gentleman was on the level. I mean, the dude was practically a Boy Scout.
I remember it like it was yesterday. I was listening to L.A.’s resident far-left talk-radio paranoid schizophrenic Carole Hemingway (one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of the Reagan “October Surprise” conspiracy theory). On Friday the 4th, Hemingway was due to go live with a press conference held by Kimberlin from his prison confines to discuss the “explosive” Quayle pot-smoking allegations (not as explosive as an amputational bomb, but still…), when all hell broke loose. The feds had put Kimberlin in solitary! There would be no press conference. Reporters were being deprived of the opportunity to hear a convicted felon’s unproven allegation of minor drug use by a VP candidate when he was in college.
Democracy was dying in darkness.
Hemingway was one of hundreds of media voices crying out in the darkness that day: Kimberlin must be heard! Nina Totenberg of NPR led the charge to discover why the feds were putting a lid on such an earth-shattering claim of candidate malfeasance, mere days before a national election.
The people had a right to know! The press had a right to know!
There was one overriding theme in every “mainstream” news report of Kimberlin’s accusations and the feds’ refusal to allow him to hold his press conference: We don’t know if the allegations are true, but this close to an election, the public has a right to hear them, and we, the press, have a duty to report them, so that voters can make up their own minds.
As Pacifica Radio host Dennis Bernstein said at the time, “the public deserves the option of deciding for itself if it believes Kimberlin.”
You might see where I’m heading with this.
Following the Bush/Quayle victory, the press did not let up on the Kimberlin story. Now there were two exciting angles for the noble saviors of democracy to pursue: There was the drug angle, sure. Quayle was VP, so anything that could be used against him was of vital importance. But there was also the “suppression” angle. By placing Kimberlin in solitary, the government had limited the public’s access to information, the week before a presidential election. It wasn’t about whether Kimberlin’s accusations were fake (they were). It wasn’t about whether Kimberlin was an unreliable source (he was). It was about the right of the American people to have access to potentially pertinent information about a candidate. Let people hear everything—the good and the bad, the real and the fake—and let them make up their own minds.
That was the media’s take on the Kimberlin affair. Access to information, even potentially fake information, was what mattered. And the government had no right to prevent a story that was very likely false, from a source that was undeniably untrustworthy, from being heard by voters. This position was summarized in a 1992 New York Times editorial:
So, even though there was every reason to believe that Kimberlin’s claims were “fake news” and politically motivated disinformation, the torchbearers of light against darkness were adamant: Kimberlin’s almost certainly false allegations should not have been censored. Every major news organ at the time took the exact same stand.
Including The Washington Post.
Yes, the same Washington Post that ran an op-ed a week ago arguing that the data from Hunter Biden’s laptop should be treated as disinformation even if it isn’t. “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation—even if they probably aren’t…. The Biden leaks deserve the full potential-disinformation treatment. Every individual little fact—every email, every text, every photo—must be independently verified.”
Don’t run the story without verification! A complete 180 from how the Post approached the Kimberlin claims.
Still, at least the Post mentioned the Biden laptop. Most media organs ignored it, or spoke of it only as a Russian plot while lauding their own bravery in suppressing the story. Meanwhile, social media initially outright banned people and news organs from even discussing the laptop (funny enough, one gets the feeling that if there’d been Twitter in 1988, Jack Dorsey would’ve kept Brett Kimberlin trending for the entire election week).
The contrast couldn’t be more clear—in the Kimberlin/Quayle case, the right of the public to have access to information, even unreliable information, even deliberately false or misleading information from a convicted perjurer, was paramount. The fact that the unsound info from the felon with an agenda might have influenced the outcome of a presidential election didn’t matter; access is better than suppression. Conversely, with the Biden laptop, the press claims to have a duty to keep potential disinformation from the public.
An obligation to block access rather than fight for it.
Now, while the media’s hypocrisy in how it handled the Kimberlin situation vs. how it’s handling the Biden laptop affair is undeniable (and achingly obvious), there’s something even more sinister, but less obvious, about the double standard. After the election, Kimberlin sued the government for violating his First Amendment rights by preventing him from holding a press conference to spread his dubious claims to a bunch of salivating media hyenas. Specifically, he sued J. Michael Quinlan of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and Loye Miller of the DOJ. After several years of courtroom wrangling, Kimberlin lost with finality in 1993 when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, decided two-to-one that Quinlan and Miller, as government officials, were entitled to qualified immunity from the claims. In other words, two judges ruled that maybe Quinlan and Miller had robbed Kimberlin of his First Amendment rights, and maybe they hadn’t. But they had immunity. So bye-bye, bomber, your suit’s scuttled.
The dissenting judge, an angry black Jimmy Carter appointee, dissented, claiming that there should be no immunity against attempts to violate our sacred tradition of free speech.
That was October 1993. Three years later, leftists (and a semi-retarded conservative) shoehorned immunity for providers of online interactive services into the Communications Decency Act of 1996. That’s Section 230, the thing that Trump tweets about a lot these days (and the thing that I was writing about years ago). It’s what gives Twitter and Facebook and Google the ability to do to people on the right what Quinlan and Miller did to Kimberlin: They can be shut away in (virtual) solitary confinement.
There are times when leftists are better than rightists at “noticing.” Lefties saw how immunity allowed the BOP and DOJ to silence a guy who was peddling info that could have damaged a Republican. So in the mid-1990s they looked at that newfangled “Internet” thing and realized that immunity was the best way to ensure that the Internet could be used to “Kimberlin” rightists should Americans outsource the public square to Big Tech (which we’ve done, to an astounding degree).
It’s an irony that’s gone terribly unappreciated. The week before the 1988 election, government officials prevented a dude with supposedly inculpatory evidence against a candidate from communicating with the public. And they had the right to do so because of the qualified immunity given to public officials. The week before the 2020 election, private actors like Jack Dorsey silenced a story containing supposedly inculpatory evidence against a candidate, and they had the right to do so because of the immunity given to online service providers by Congress. The gift of immunity has been extended to private-sector billionaires who’ve become the final arbiters of what gets heard and what gets buried.
And now leftists are working hard to remove qualified immunity from public officials, while at the same time working even harder to make sure it’s never taken away from Big Tech gatekeepers.
You gotta give leftists credit; they’ve played this one masterfully.
Kimberlin was, and continues to be, a most unsavory figure. He ended up serving only thirteen years of that fifty-year sentence, and then four more after his parole was revoked. He’s now a “respected” leftist activist. But his Quayle claims (which were later proven—by one of his initial defenders—to be completely bogus) should have been heard, on principle. The public should have access to all information about candidates, even info of questionable authenticity. But that was not the left’s takeaway from the Kimberlin defeat. Leftists didn’t learn what not to do…they learned what works.
This is a fine example of how Dems play the long game. Will it pay off on November 3rd? I have no idea as I write this…but I guess we’ll all know soon enough.
Immunity for the Speech Suppressors
David ColeNovember 3rd…election day. There’s not much a man of my years can do at a time like this but think back to elections past. And at the moment I’m thinking of Friday, November 4th, 1988, four days before America had the privilege of choosing between two of the most uninspiring bowls of soggy Minute Rice to ever face off on the national stage.
During campaign season, the media had focused most of its fury on poor Dan Quayle, Bush’s marble-mouthed Spoonerist VP choice. Quayle, a social conservative, hit all the right “culture war” buttons, and the left responded with the predictability of piano-pecking chickens. Quayle was a racist, anti-Semitic, misogynist, homophobic fascist. And dumb, too! Oh, and his wife is ugly (Bill Maher shot a film in which he pretended to beat Quayle’s wife, Marilyn, to a bloody pulp, because, um, comedy?).
Having failed at all the usual slurs, and growing despondent over the baffling lethargy on the part of their candidate Michael Dukakis, Democrats and their media toads began grasping at straws. And they caught hold of one. On November 4th, reporters received the tip of a lifetime: A federal prison inmate in Oklahoma claimed that he’d sold pot to Dan Quayle when the VP candidate was in law school in 1972!
A devastating accusation: A dude smoked a joint in college. Surely this would be the silver bullet to fell the Bush/Quayle juggernaut.
The claim was being made by Brett Kimberlin, a young fellow serving a 50-year sentence whose only crime had been conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. Oh, and possession and illegal use of a Department of Defense insignia, illegal use of the Seal of the President of the United States, and impersonation of a federal officer. Oh, and perjury. Oh, and a series of serial bombings that terrorized Indiana in 1978 (one bomb blew the leg off a Vietnam vet who later committed suicide due to his injuries). So surely this Kimberlin gentleman was on the level. I mean, the dude was practically a Boy Scout.
I remember it like it was yesterday. I was listening to L.A.’s resident far-left talk-radio paranoid schizophrenic Carole Hemingway (one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of the Reagan “October Surprise” conspiracy theory). On Friday the 4th, Hemingway was due to go live with a press conference held by Kimberlin from his prison confines to discuss the “explosive” Quayle pot-smoking allegations (not as explosive as an amputational bomb, but still…), when all hell broke loose. The feds had put Kimberlin in solitary! There would be no press conference. Reporters were being deprived of the opportunity to hear a convicted felon’s unproven allegation of minor drug use by a VP candidate when he was in college.
Democracy was dying in darkness.
Hemingway was one of hundreds of media voices crying out in the darkness that day: Kimberlin must be heard! Nina Totenberg of NPR led the charge to discover why the feds were putting a lid on such an earth-shattering claim of candidate malfeasance, mere days before a national election.
The people had a right to know! The press had a right to know!
There was one overriding theme in every “mainstream” news report of Kimberlin’s accusations and the feds’ refusal to allow him to hold his press conference: We don’t know if the allegations are true, but this close to an election, the public has a right to hear them, and we, the press, have a duty to report them, so that voters can make up their own minds.
As Pacifica Radio host Dennis Bernstein said at the time, “the public deserves the option of deciding for itself if it believes Kimberlin.”
You might see where I’m heading with this.
Following the Bush/Quayle victory, the press did not let up on the Kimberlin story. Now there were two exciting angles for the noble saviors of democracy to pursue: There was the drug angle, sure. Quayle was VP, so anything that could be used against him was of vital importance. But there was also the “suppression” angle. By placing Kimberlin in solitary, the government had limited the public’s access to information, the week before a presidential election. It wasn’t about whether Kimberlin’s accusations were fake (they were). It wasn’t about whether Kimberlin was an unreliable source (he was). It was about the right of the American people to have access to potentially pertinent information about a candidate. Let people hear everything—the good and the bad, the real and the fake—and let them make up their own minds.
That was the media’s take on the Kimberlin affair. Access to information, even potentially fake information, was what mattered. And the government had no right to prevent a story that was very likely false, from a source that was undeniably untrustworthy, from being heard by voters. This position was summarized in a 1992 New York Times editorial:
So, even though there was every reason to believe that Kimberlin’s claims were “fake news” and politically motivated disinformation, the torchbearers of light against darkness were adamant: Kimberlin’s almost certainly false allegations should not have been censored. Every major news organ at the time took the exact same stand.
Including The Washington Post.
Yes, the same Washington Post that ran an op-ed a week ago arguing that the data from Hunter Biden’s laptop should be treated as disinformation even if it isn’t. “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation—even if they probably aren’t…. The Biden leaks deserve the full potential-disinformation treatment. Every individual little fact—every email, every text, every photo—must be independently verified.”
Don’t run the story without verification! A complete 180 from how the Post approached the Kimberlin claims.
Still, at least the Post mentioned the Biden laptop. Most media organs ignored it, or spoke of it only as a Russian plot while lauding their own bravery in suppressing the story. Meanwhile, social media initially outright banned people and news organs from even discussing the laptop (funny enough, one gets the feeling that if there’d been Twitter in 1988, Jack Dorsey would’ve kept Brett Kimberlin trending for the entire election week).
The contrast couldn’t be more clear—in the Kimberlin/Quayle case, the right of the public to have access to information, even unreliable information, even deliberately false or misleading information from a convicted perjurer, was paramount. The fact that the unsound info from the felon with an agenda might have influenced the outcome of a presidential election didn’t matter; access is better than suppression. Conversely, with the Biden laptop, the press claims to have a duty to keep potential disinformation from the public.
An obligation to block access rather than fight for it.
Now, while the media’s hypocrisy in how it handled the Kimberlin situation vs. how it’s handling the Biden laptop affair is undeniable (and achingly obvious), there’s something even more sinister, but less obvious, about the double standard. After the election, Kimberlin sued the government for violating his First Amendment rights by preventing him from holding a press conference to spread his dubious claims to a bunch of salivating media hyenas. Specifically, he sued J. Michael Quinlan of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and Loye Miller of the DOJ. After several years of courtroom wrangling, Kimberlin lost with finality in 1993 when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, decided two-to-one that Quinlan and Miller, as government officials, were entitled to qualified immunity from the claims. In other words, two judges ruled that maybe Quinlan and Miller had robbed Kimberlin of his First Amendment rights, and maybe they hadn’t. But they had immunity. So bye-bye, bomber, your suit’s scuttled.
The dissenting judge, an angry black Jimmy Carter appointee, dissented, claiming that there should be no immunity against attempts to violate our sacred tradition of free speech.
That was October 1993. Three years later, leftists (and a semi-retarded conservative) shoehorned immunity for providers of online interactive services into the Communications Decency Act of 1996. That’s Section 230, the thing that Trump tweets about a lot these days (and the thing that I was writing about years ago). It’s what gives Twitter and Facebook and Google the ability to do to people on the right what Quinlan and Miller did to Kimberlin: They can be shut away in (virtual) solitary confinement.
There are times when leftists are better than rightists at “noticing.” Lefties saw how immunity allowed the BOP and DOJ to silence a guy who was peddling info that could have damaged a Republican. So in the mid-1990s they looked at that newfangled “Internet” thing and realized that immunity was the best way to ensure that the Internet could be used to “Kimberlin” rightists should Americans outsource the public square to Big Tech (which we’ve done, to an astounding degree).
It’s an irony that’s gone terribly unappreciated. The week before the 1988 election, government officials prevented a dude with supposedly inculpatory evidence against a candidate from communicating with the public. And they had the right to do so because of the qualified immunity given to public officials. The week before the 2020 election, private actors like Jack Dorsey silenced a story containing supposedly inculpatory evidence against a candidate, and they had the right to do so because of the immunity given to online service providers by Congress. The gift of immunity has been extended to private-sector billionaires who’ve become the final arbiters of what gets heard and what gets buried.
And now leftists are working hard to remove qualified immunity from public officials, while at the same time working even harder to make sure it’s never taken away from Big Tech gatekeepers.
You gotta give leftists credit; they’ve played this one masterfully.
Kimberlin was, and continues to be, a most unsavory figure. He ended up serving only thirteen years of that fifty-year sentence, and then four more after his parole was revoked. He’s now a “respected” leftist activist. But his Quayle claims (which were later proven—by one of his initial defenders—to be completely bogus) should have been heard, on principle. The public should have access to all information about candidates, even info of questionable authenticity. But that was not the left’s takeaway from the Kimberlin defeat. Leftists didn’t learn what not to do…they learned what works.
This is a fine example of how Dems play the long game. Will it pay off on November 3rd? I have no idea as I write this…but I guess we’ll all know soon enough.
Im counting on a trump victory and the idea that he will clean out the deep state in his 2nd term. The blocking, shadow banning and purposely written algorythims by big tech to suppress free speech of conservative voices is blatantly unAmerican. I recently was listening to a podcast about this very topic and a left leaning doctor, i want to say Stein... Dr. STEIN??? My memory fails me. Anyway he has developed spyware to spy on big tech just the way they spy on us. Even tho his vote is democrat and has admittedly said that he is fine for a full democrat election ticket he believes it must be fair and has devoted alot of time, money and effort to ensure the integrity of our election process. Even tho him and I disagree politically i cannot appreciate his noble effort enough to keeping free speech free. This is a hallmark of a true American. He has found that the leftist controlled media does shadow ban and block conservative voices. Also he has found that typically conservative profiles receive MORE leftists feed than even leftists receive. Which seems to indicate the arrogance of the programming team to try to persuade conservative voices to win them over with their forced feed content. Yes, free speech as long as its approved by them. Typical left wing bullshit.
I also heard thru the grapevine that Trump is fixin to fire a number of high profile govt positions for their role in the deep state. Their role in the suppression of the hunter biden story and many in the intelligence community for their role in it. Trump is the man to do. CLEAN THE MFERS OUT NOW!
Similar threads
