Donald Trump running for president

[thebigt]

Plastic-osi is setting up a 9/11 style commission to investigate the horror and terrorist acts of the 6th.

I guess a big book in limited edition hard cover full of fairytales just like the original book for 9/11 will soon follow?

I just love paying taxes.

don't forget the warren commission, all that money spent to tell us about a 'MAGIC' bullet.

 

[BOSSMAN]

 

[thebigt]

They're celebrating *FORMER* President Trump. Waving a Trump 2020 flag after the election is over and Biden is in office is just as dumb as waving a Confederate Flag a century and a half after they lost the war. But then again, lots of people fly them both, so at least they're consistent I suppose.

maybe they are just saying they aren't going to accept biden as their president...the same as many democrats did with trump?

4 years of hearing democrats say trump was not their president=KARMA?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

View attachment 202464

Also applicable to many conservatives:

1. against gay couples having equal rights under the law as straight couples, and making it illegal for someone to smoke weed in their own home.

2. Parlor censors and bans people too. Both sides are guilty of this.

3. Maybe you have a point there

4. Both parties are fully of massive hypocrites. To suggest otherwise is asinine.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

maybe they are just saying they aren't going to accept biden as their president...the same as many democrats did with trump?

4 years of hearing democrats say trump was not their president=KARMA?

Haha. Ok, but then they’re admitting they’re no better than the people they said were in denial and idiots who couldn’t accept reality. And the cycle continues, with both sides mocking the other side for doing exactly what they just did and/or are about to do themselves. Massive hypocrites, the lot of them, on both sides of the aisle.

 

[thebigt]

Also applicable to many conservatives:

1. against gay couples having equal rights under the law as straight couples, and making it illegal for someone to smoke weed in their own home.

2. Parlor censors and bans people too. Both sides are guilty of this.

3. Maybe you have a point there

4. Both parties are fully of massive hypocrites. To suggest otherwise is asinine.

1.-i don't give a flying 'F' what people do in their own homes provided abuse of children or animals aren't involved...smoke weed and go driving then i got issues.
2.-what the hell is a parlor...you mean massage parlor?
3.-????
4.-i've been called worse.

i'm glad you said many and not all conservatives because i don't fit into a lump package.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

1.-i don't give a flying 'F' what people do in their own homes provided abuse of children or animals aren't involved...smoke weed and go driving then i got issues.
2.-what the hell is a parlor...you mean massage parlor?
3.-????
4.-i've been called worse.

i'm glad you said many and not all conservatives because i don't fit into a lump package.

Exactly, YOU are reasonable. I respect you.

Parlor is the Trump-fan’s alternative to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. They cry about social media silencing them, and then do the same to anyone who disagrees with them on their platform.

Point 3 means I can’t really argue against that one lol.

 

[thebigt]

Haha. Ok, but then they’re admitting they’re no better than the people they said were in denial and idiots who couldn’t accept reality. And the cycle continues, with both sides mocking the other side for doing exactly what they just did and/or are about to do themselves. Massive hypocrites, the lot of them, on both sides of the aisle.

maybe, but i know a lot of conservatives who look at it as payback for the way democrats treated trump.

maybe they are hypocrites but nothing you say is going to change their minds much as nothing i could have told democrats about trump was going to change their minds either......you and or me posting here on a bb'ing forum isn't going to change any minds.

 

[thebigt]

Exactly, YOU are reasonable. I respect you.

Parlor is the Trump-fan’s alternative to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. They cry about social media silencing them, and then do the same to anyone who disagrees with them on their platform.

Point 3 means I can’t really argue against that one lol.

is it reality to compare something i've never even heard of [parlor] to multi-billion member sites like facebook and twitter?

 

[Beau]

Parlor is a social media format. It is unrelated to Trump's fans. Parlor is simply a much smaller alternative for anyone who finds the selective editing and data controlling by Fakebook and Twitter appalling. I object because both are protected by 47 U.S. Code Section 230, but they are, by virtue of their actions, "publishers" and should have Section 230 protections removed. I understand, but do not know, that the allure of Parlor is that it will allow conservative views. The facts show that Fakebook and Twitter do not.

Fakebook and Twitter (along with AWS) colluded to shut Parlor down, although I've recently heard they are back in operation. They have the ability and wealth to cause that to happen. Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Jeff Bezos are as sympathetic to conservative views as Andrew Cuomo is sympathetic to nursing home inhabitants.

I have no dog in the fight. I do not use Parlor. I would be interested in a fact based discussion on the extent to which Parlor is guilty of the same degree to retaliation against those who post a dissenting opinion as do Fakebook and Twitter. I seriously doubt any critical thinking person, regardless of their political views, could come to any conclusion other than Fakebook and Twitter are essentially censuring opinions they do not like. If Parlor does the same, then shame on them.

There are several Project Veritas film clips presenting the facts on this subject.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Parlor is a social media format. It is unrelated to Trump's fans. Parlor is simply an alternative for anyone who finds the selective editing and data controlling controlling of Fakebook and Twitter appalling. I object because both are protected by 47 U.S. Code Section 230, but they are, by virtue of their actions, "publishers" and should have Section 230 protections removed.

Fakebook and Twitter (along with AWS) colluded to shut Parlor down, although I've recently heard they are back in operation.

I have no dog in the fight. I do not use Parlor. I would be interested in a fact based discussion on the extent to which Parlor is guilty of the same degree to retaliation against those who post a dissenting opinion as do Fakebook and Twitter. I seriously doubt any critical thinking person, regardless of their political views, could come to any conclusion other than Fakebook and Twitter are essentially censuring opinions they do not like. If Parlor does the same, then shame on them.

There are several Project Veritas film clips presenting the facts on this subject.

Parlor selectively edits and removes content and bans users too man.

OF COURSE Facebook and Twitter censors things they don't like more than things they do like. Go look at Twitch streams (which are often gaming related) and they TOTALLY pick and choose who to enforce rules for and who gets free passes.

I can post dozens of articles showing that Parlor censors users, but people will probably just tell me that "you can't trust the mainstream media and their agenda," so I have no idea how I'd even begin to try to cite source people here would believe. I would make an account and show you, but I don't feel like giving them my phone number, as they require an email and a phone number to sign up.

is it reality to compare something i've never even heard of [parlor] to multi-billion member sites like facebook and twitter?

You have to admit there's a little bit of irony in people complaining that massive social media platforms censor users they disagree with, only to make your own platform and turn around and do exactly the same things on a much smaller scale.

 

[jswain34]

is it reality to compare something i've never even heard of [parlor] to multi-billion member sites like facebook and twitter?

I already told you what parlor was about 90-300 pages ago man!

 

[Beau]

Last comment on this: Because of their early entry in the market, protections under 230 and their overwhelming wealth and market dominance, Fakebook and Twitter censuring things to the extent they do is disproportionate and down right scary. One might read Fahrenheit 451 in less theoretical way now. One needs to also consider how dissenting opinions are being are being redefined now, and expect that anything that is not in lock step with "progressive" views will be reclassified to fall outside of the 1st Amendment. Scoff if you like. If they can essentially "kill" the Hunter Biden story, they most certainly can have a far reaching influence.

If I am to believe the main stream media accounts, there are a lot of democrats that would not have voted for Biden if they had known of the Hunter Biden story. But they didn't. Because it was killed and alleged to be misinformation. That the reality of the situation is just now allowed to be discussed, is frightening.

This will not end well.

 

[HIT4ME]

One thing about this thread. You cannot step away for a few days and then pop right back in to make a quick comment, that's for sure.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Last comment on this: Because of their early entry in the market, protections under 230 and their overwhelming wealth and market dominance, Fakebook and Twitter censuring things to the extent they do is disproportionate and down right scary. One might read Fahrenheit 451 in less theoretical way now. One needs to also consider how dissenting opinions are being are being redefined now, and expect that anything that is not in lock step with "progressive" views will be reclassified to fall outside of the 1st Amendment. Scoff if you like. If they can essentially "kill" the Hunter Biden story, they most certainly can have a far reaching influence.

If I am to believe the main stream media accounts, there are a lot of democrats tat would not have voted for Biden if they had known of the Hunter Biden story. But they didn't. Because it was killed and alleged to be misinformation. That the reality of the situation is just now allowed to be discussed, is frightening.

This will not end well.

The First Amendment NEVER protected free speech on private platforms though. It only protects people's right to free speech from GOVERNMENT censorship or punishment. A private company can ban anyone who uses the word "the" if they want to be arbitrary and destroy their entire userbase for some strange reason.

You can argue that the media and big tech platforms silence one side more than the other, but that has ZERO to do with the First Amendment. At all.

 

[Beau]

The First Amendment NEVER protected free speech on private platforms though. It only protects people's right to free speech from GOVERNMENT censorship or punishment. A private company can ban anyone who uses the word "the" if they want to be arbitrary and destroy their entire userbase for some strange reason.

You can argue that the media and big tech platforms silence one side more than the other, but that has ZERO to do with the First Amendment. At all.

My comments about the first amendment, if you read them again, are in no way tied or linked to social media. They spoke to how dissenting opinions are/will be redefined to be outside of the first amendment. Social media does not do that. That occurs via Government.

If social media formats want to edit, then remove 230 - and let the chips fall where they may.

I know a lot about this subject based on what I do for a living.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Remove 230 protection and we agree.

I know a lot about this subject based on what I do for a living.

What exactly is it you do for a living if you don't mind me asking? Because people ITT, not saying YOU, just people, talk a TON about things they have no business claiming to be experts in. I mentioned pages back that my degree was in civil engineering, and was laughed at by Thor for "not trusting my gut" in regards to structural forensics, which is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. So I'm genuinely curious how your job and experience relates to this, and how it gives you a more advanced and nuanced view of the topic than a layman in the field would have.

 

[Beau]

I am a C Level who oversees a large team of corporate Attorneys and Contract Negotiation Specialists, and am the sole signatory for my Corporation and each business unit. I am also responsible for policy development, implementation and compliance. I have dealt in IP, FAR, regulatory, and legislative matters for 35 years and have negotiated with many, many Government entities and presented in professional forums and negotiated with a lot of fortune 100 companies. I have also been extensively involved in mergers and acquisitions. Although I am fairly crappy at a bunch of things, I know what those things are - and I have seen to it that they are not part of my core responsibilities. Regardless, I do not lack confidence in things with which I have experience. I have a lot of familiarity in the issues I described above (otherwise I wouldn't have said anything). I learned long ago that opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has them, but you usually do not need to make that apparent. Clearly, I couldn't do my job unless I am surrounded and supported by very competent and capable (and really good) people, who I am very loyal to.

Did I get the job (kidding)?

Edit - BTW I usually do not talk about stuff like this because doing so trends to make me sound like I am a pretentious and hierarchical jerk. I am not pretentious or hierarchical. The other part is open to interpretation.

P.S. - I realize that not everyone may be familiar with the projections afforded under Section 230 - so I pulled this directly from Wikipedia: Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section 230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.

By almost every standard, social media platforms that edit/restrict content are, indeed, publishers and should not be subject to or benefit from this immunity. Selectively applying restrictions fails the essence of the standard of barganing in good faith and fairly.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I am a C Level who oversees a large team of corporate Attorneys and Contract Negotiation Specialists, and am the sole signatory for my Corporation and each business unit. I am also responsible for policy development, implementation and compliance. I have dealt in IP, FAR, regulatory, and legislative matters for 35 years and have negotiated with many, many Government entities and presented in professional forums and negotiated with a lot of fortune 100 companies. I have also been extensively involved in mergers and acquisitions. Although I am fairly crappy at a bunch of things, I know what those things are - and I have seen to it that they are not part of my core responsibilities. Regardless, I do not lack confidence in things with which I have experienced. I have a lot of familiarity in the issues I described above (otherwise I wouldn't have said anything). I learned long ago that opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has them, but you usually do not need to make that apparent. Clearly, I couldn't do my job unless I am surrounded and supported by very competent and capable (and really good) people, who I am very loyal to.

Did I get the job?

Haha. Thank you for sharing, and I mean that with the utmost sincerity. I respect that you only speak with confidence on issues you are knowledgeable in, and therefore have deserved confidence in. Just like when I said I didn't know enough about structural forensics to make definitive claims on 9/11, yet a user here (Thor) who doesn't understand how thrusters can work in space after multiple people and articles explaining it with multiple real-world, replicable examples, was confident in mocking my "not trusting my gut" in regards to advanced structural forensics.

I do not have nearly the experience you do in this field, which I admit freely, as I am not in denial. And I will not try to say that "your education and experience has made you blinded to obviousness" as others have said of me, since "obvious" is so subjective it means nothing of merit or substance.

So I will do the responsible thing and say that, regardless of what I may think, my views on the topic are not based in nearly as much experience or education on the topic as yours are. I am not saying that means I agree with you on the topic, but that I respect your opinion on an issue where there may well not be ONE definitive, perfect answer.

Unfortunately I have no job to give. But you get two thumbs up. Very nice!

 

[Ricky10]

One thing about this thread. You cannot step away for a few days and then pop right back in to make a quick comment, that's for sure.

Sure you can...don’t be silly. Watch..

O’Biden is a puppet of China who is already proving that his administration will systematically destroy this country.

 

[Ricky10]

If I am to believe the main stream media accounts, there are a lot of democrats tat would not have voted for Biden if they had known of the Hunter Biden story. But they didn't. Because it was killed and alleged to be misinformation. That the reality of the situation is just now allowed to be discussed, is frightening.

This will not end well.

I think most people knew about the Hunter accusations - you would have had to be living under a rock. Trump himself certainly wasn’t bashful about it during at least one of the debates. For people to see it as misinformation simply because the media ignored it shows the ignorance of people and how easily they are manipulated by the media. People who weren’t able to see the big picture shouldn’t be voting in the first place.

Haha...listen to me referencing voting as though it is still actually a thing!

 

[Ricky10]

He looks like he injected himself with high levels of embalming fluid.

And failed. Much like everything else he gets involved in..

 

[thebigt]

I already told you what parlor was about 90-300 pages ago man!

lol..are you joking?

1st of all our definition would probably differ as much on what parlar is as on politics.
2nd-can you tell me off the top of your head the topics that were discussed 90 pages ago.
3rd. yeah, that is really narrowing it down...between 90 and 300 pages ago--wow, you should be a weatherman-eh?

 

[thebigt]

I think most people knew about the Hunter accusations - you would have had to be living under a rock. Trump himself certainly wasn’t bashful about it during at least one of the debates. For people to see it as misinformation simply because the media ignored it shows the ignorance of people and how easily they are manipulated by the media. People who weren’t able to see the big picture shouldn’t be voting in the first place.

Haha...listen to me referencing voting as though it is still actually a thing!

what happened to biden accuser tara reade? how about the other 7, i think there were 8 total?

 

[Jiigzz]

Last comment on this: Because of their early entry in the market, protections under 230 and their overwhelming wealth and market dominance, Fakebook and Twitter censuring things to the extent they do is disproportionate and down right scary. One might read Fahrenheit 451 in less theoretical way now. One needs to also consider how dissenting opinions are being are being redefined now, and expect that anything that is not in lock step with "progressive" views will be reclassified to fall outside of the 1st Amendment. Scoff if you like. If they can essentially "kill" the Hunter Biden story, they most certainly can have a far reaching influence.

If I am to believe the main stream media accounts, there are a lot of democrats tat would not have voted for Biden if they had known of the Hunter Biden story. But they didn't. Because it was killed and alleged to be misinformation. That the reality of the situation is just now allowed to be discussed, is frightening.

This will not end well.

I did find this rather ironic

 

[thebigt]

I did find this rather ironicView attachment 202471View attachment 202472

are you a regular poster there?

 

[Jiigzz]

are you a regular poster there?

Don't have an account, but it was funny to read that

 

[THOR 70]

One thing about this thread. You cannot step away for a few days and then pop right back in to make a quick comment, that's for sure.

You just did! Which I didn’t know was possible from you haha! I mean that in a good way

 

[THOR 70]

Haha. Thank you for sharing, and I mean that with the utmost sincerity. I respect that you only speak with confidence on issues you are knowledgeable in, and therefore have deserved confidence in. Just like when I said I didn't know enough about structural forensics to make definitive claims on 9/11, yet a user here (Thor) who doesn't understand how thrusters can work in space after multiple people and articles explaining it with multiple real-world, replicable examples, was confident in mocking my "not trusting my gut" in regards to advanced structural forensics.

I do not have nearly the experience you do in this field, which I admit freely, as I am not in denial. And I will not try to say that "your education and experience has made you blinded to obviousness" as others have said of me, since "obvious" is so subjective it means nothing of merit or substance.

So I will do the responsible thing and say that, regardless of what I may think, my views on the topic are not based in nearly as much experience or education on the topic as yours are. I am not saying that means I agree with you on the topic, but that I respect your opinion on an issue where there may well not be ONE definitive, perfect answer.

Unfortunately I have no job to give. But you get two thumbs up. Very nice!

Edit:duplicate

 

[THOR 70]

Haha. Thank you for sharing, and I mean that with the utmost sincerity. I respect that you only speak with confidence on issues you are knowledgeable in, and therefore have deserved confidence in. Just like when I said I didn't know enough about structural forensics to make definitive claims on 9/11, yet a user here (Thor) who doesn't understand how thrusters can work in space after multiple people and articles explaining it with multiple real-world, replicable examples, was confident in mocking my "not trusting my gut" in regards to advanced structural forensics.

I do not have nearly the experience you do in this field, which I admit freely, as I am not in denial. And I will not try to say that "your education and experience has made you blinded to obviousness" as others have said of me, since "obvious" is so subjective it means nothing of merit or substance.

So I will do the responsible thing and say that, regardless of what I may think, my views on the topic are not based in nearly as much experience or education on the topic as yours are. I am not saying that means I agree with you on the topic, but that I respect your opinion on an issue where there may well not be ONE definitive, perfect answer.

Unfortunately I have no job to give. But you get two thumbs up. Very nice!

Bro you’re so insecure. You called
Beau out, then realized he is way more knowledgeable on the topic than you, so you had to bring me up to make yourself feel better and tell yourself you’re smarter than someone. You really gotta stop getting your validation from a message board

 

[thebigt]

Don't have an account, but it was funny to read that

i thought it was kinda sad to be honest...

 

[BOSSMAN]

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Bro you’re so insecure. You called
Beau out, then realized he is way more knowledgeable on the topic than you, so you had to bring me up to make yourself feel better and tell yourself you’re smarter than someone. You really gotta stop getting your validation from a message board

I didn’t call him out. He said he is experienced in the field, and I asked him to elaborate, and readily admitted that he’s more knowledgeable than me on the topic once he explained. You know, like a reasonable person...

Also, you figure out thrusters yet bro?

If I was here for validation, I would have left this thread a long time ago, as most people here disagree with me. What lunatic looks for validation in a place where people disagree with most things they say? By that logic, I’d just to go a mainstream social media platform echo chamber and get validation there where people agree with me and others are supposedly silenced. But let me guess, I’m overthinking things again instead of “trusting my gut because it’s obvious...”

 

[kisaj]

I’ve never seen a more punchable face in my life. The real holiday will be when that disgusting stupid pedo is worm food.

You haven't seen any of the GOP senate? They all need kicks to the face.

 

[sammpedd88]

You haven't seen any of the GOP senate? They all need kicks to the face.

The ones that truly need a kick in the face are the ones that are driving the divide in this country. The radical BLM and ANTIFA groups are being funded by someone or several people that want this country in turmoil. I’m fed the fukk up with being made out to be a racist, privileged or a white supremacist because I’m a white cop. I have conservative views but I’m so fed up with both parties. Sometimes I wish we could wipe them out like oh Designated Survivor and start over fresh.

 

[dixonk]

You haven't seen any of the GOP senate? They all need kicks to the face.

Don’t get me wrong I would enjoy seeing them all get mud checked. But Pedo Joe, he is something special. If thoughts were a crime then I would be headed to prison.

 

[Beau]

I think most people knew about the Hunter accusations - you would have had to be living under a rock. Trump himself certainly wasn’t bashful about it during at least one of the debates. For people to see it as misinformation simply because the media ignored it shows the ignorance of people and how easily they are manipulated by the media.

I thought so as well, and I was very surprised to hear the allegation that a large percentage of Democrats were not aware of the Hunter Biden mess and laptop, and that - allegedly - that would have changed their voting behavior. To the best of my knowledge, when I was younger the media simply reported stories. To me (at least) it now seems like every story (at least those they choose to report) is a thinly veiled Op Ed.

 

[Beau]

I did find this rather ironicView attachment 202471View attachment 202472

I have never heard of Gab. I am not sure if it is relevant to compare them (if my assumption is correct and they are some sort of limited fringe social media source) against the largest players in the social media space, but I may be wrong. I don't agree with posters with being ignored, but I suppose ignoring a poster (if the post remains in tact) is better than having the post removed or banning the poster. Again, I have no dog in this fight. I guess my point is more along these lines - a comparison between Disneyland and small time carnival may not provide much in the way of usable or actionable results, even if the carnival occurred in Anaheim.

 

[kisaj]

Don’t get me wrong I would enjoy seeing them all get mud checked. But Pedo Joe, he is something special. If thoughts were a crime then I would be headed to prison.

That's how I feel about Cruz and McConnell. I'm sure their moms even hate their faces.

 

[dixonk]

That's how I feel about Cruz and McConnell. I'm sure their moms even hate their faces.

McConnell doesn’t even look human to me. And Cruz looks like he is constantly 2 seconds away from crying.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

McConnell doesn’t even look human to me. And Cruz looks like he is constantly 2 seconds away from crying.

These are really, really good descriptions.

 

[dixonk]

These are really, really good descriptions.

But I can’t say that those two have an appetite for small children like the pedophile in chief does.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

But I can’t say that those two have an appetite for small children like the pedophile in chief does.

They prefer to f**k the country instead.

 

[thebigt]

dang, looks like march of 2020 here...everything is shut down!!!

forecast calls for more snow tomorrow but as of now not a whole lot---but i think weather forecasters will probably change the forecast several times between now and then?

 

[dixonk]

They prefer to f**k the country instead.

Them and everyone else in DC. No one is not complicit in that. No one.

 

[thebigt]

McConnell doesn’t even look human to me. And Cruz looks like he is constantly 2 seconds away from crying.

what about jerry nadler, adam shiff and maxine waters?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Them and everyone else in DC. No one is not complicit in that. No one.

To varying degrees. They’re particularly egregious. Ron Paul, when he was in office, wasn’t nearly as bad as most politicians for example.

 

[dixonk]

To varying degrees. They’re particularly egregious. Ron Paul, when he was in office, wasn’t nearly as bad as most politicians for example.

Nor is Rand Paul for that matter.

 

[dixonk]

what about jerry nadler, adam shiff and maxine waters?

Don’t get me started on Oompa Loompa, bug eyes, and retarded Maxine.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Nor is Rand Paul for that matter.

Ron > Rand. But Ron >>>> most everyone in politics, so I guess that probably goes without saying lol.

Edit: I think Rand abandoned some libertarian ideals to try to gain more mainstream support and success, which some libertarians think was necessary for someone to do at some point. But given that it never quite succeeded as well as people hoped for, many view him as “selling out” to a degree. Just to clarify why I think Ron > Rand.