POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

Gaetz is claiming that he is being extorted by a former DOJ official, and that his father wore a wire while talking to said DOJ official at the behest of the FBI.

Boy this is a doozy

 

I remember Gaetz being the lone vote against an anti-trafficking bill. Lone as in the only member of the 435 in the House of Representatives. Couldn't happen to a bigger piece of shit. His deal with his "son" is super weird, too.

 

Gaetz had his dad talk to the police? Isn't he an adult?

Reminds me of Colin Jost, who once said he got stoned with a girl on their first date, got super paranoid, and called his parents telling them she poisoned him. The parents then rushed over, and berated the young girl, asking if her parents knew she was doing drugs. And she responded, "No, because I'm 30." And it turns out Colin Jost was also 30.

 

If it’s true, I’m sure the FBI is now very happy that everybody knows dad wears a wire.

 

Seems like two things can be true: he was being blackmailed/extorted by DOJ person, and he what he was being blackmailed over was true in that he was up to no good with a minor. Not saying both are true, but just pointing out that both can be true.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...-lara-trump-video-removed-capitol/4823121001/

This seems... problematic...

 

It's not. They are a private company.

 

Control the dialogue and you control the people

 

I don’t think you believe half of what you say anymore.

 

Let me try to take reason and shove it between your ears, once again.

Our legal system, and the philosophy we are built upon, is one that requires that a wrong is done at the level of the individual. Not the group, the individual. The individual, Indy.

So, given this, let's take an example of someone who uses a private company as the source of all of their information. It isn't the companies fault, nor their responsibility, to serve this individual. Even though this individual uses the site as their source for all their information. In fact, that company can ban that person from using the site. As an example, suppose you used this site as your source of news, and I ban you. I have done no wrong. I'm not morally obligated, nor legally obligated to let you visit this site. Even if it is the source of all your news and information. Even if there isn't any good alternative, for you, or anyone.

Now, because I'm not morally or legally obligated to let ONE person... the fact that 100 million people use it, also doesn't make me morally or legally obligated to allow them to use it, because, we work at the level of the individual. The group numbers are arbitrary, and our philosophy of law does not do arbitrary. As such, because it isn't a wrong for ONE, it also isn't a wrong for MANY.

And this is true regardless of the one, or the many.

Now, our philosophical and legal system does allow for certain protected classes. But, political affiliation is not one of those classes, and shouldn't be.

Do I need to break down why political affiliation shouldn't be a protected class, the way I just had to break down private companies, and "news?" Because, I'm pretty certain, that even when I do, you still won't get it.

 

I would think this kind of sentiment pertains to a government and not a private company.

 

Imagine if by law, we had to let anyone post anything here. Imagine. No banning of anyone, for anything.

 

Nah. Control is control. Twitter and Facebook want to dictate who says what based off their politics, so be it, but it's still bullshit. I'd have the same issue with it if they were banning biden and deleting anything dems say. There are left and right leaning sites for people to go to and know why they are there. Facebook and Twitter aren't political sites.

 

No. You are advocating for the government to control and dictate how twitter and facebook run their business, and what is said. I'm not sure you are wrong, it is the way media used to be treated with the FCC's Fairness Doctrine. But understand that the same would be done to every conservative radio station. Fox News. News Max. All of them. Everything. It'd be back to forced equal time.

 

Nah I'd just prefer FB and twitter, since they won't go away, to go back to the way they were before trump and since decided to sensor people whose opinions they dont agree with. Again, if it was the other way I'd call bs too. I imagine most dems wouldn't be so for it if it was the other way either.

 

The cool thing about Facebook and Twitter is that you don’t have use their platforms if you don’t want to, for any reason, good or bad or otherwise.

 

It doesn't matter if people are for or against it, of one party or any other.

Private companies have no obligation to allow people to use their platform, they only have a monetary incentive; right wrong or otherwise.

 

True but doesn't make suddenly choosing censorship a good or right thing to do. There was no censorship of political figures or statements for many years.
I wouldn't expect liberals to agree because the censorship is in their favor. Flip it around and it would be different, guaranteed.

 

But, Facebook isn't censoring him based on his politics, but because of his multiple violations of their terms of service. Biden hasn't done so, which is why he (or the people who run his page) still posts messages there as do a number of other conservatives who haven't violated their terms of service. Same with Twitter. The idea both are doing something equal there is false. Trump earned his banning through his personal attacks and advocacy of election lies and his daughter trying to circumvent the ban would open up other opportunities for it to happen.

 

It doesn't have to be good or right. It isn't wrong, though. Not morally. Not legally.

In what way would it be different? If you are saying that the majority users of these platforms are left leaning, you're probably correct. So there is a monetary incentive to not do that. But there still isn't a moral or legal reason. Just monetary.