FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

As I said previously...

When ya' ain't got facts, you go with what ya' gots. The MAGAt's can't tell the difference anyway. What's amusing is how whell brings that nonsense here as if this is some pro-MAGA page where they just eat that stuff up, SMH.

Gotta wonder about his motivation for posting such nonsense. He either:

• Believes it's true because wingnut media has poisoned his brain.
  
• Knows it's false, but is trying to convince himself (or us) that Trump isn't any worse than any other politician and therefore he is not irrational for still supporting (or having had supported) him despite his minor (and ubiquitous among politicians) flaws.
  
• He doesn't know or care whether it's true or false, but reflexively defends Trump against all antagonists (Democrats, Independents, RINO's, the press, law enforcement and the judiciary) simply because he voted for him and can't admit to himself that he was conned by the world's most obvious con-man.

In any event, there's a load of bad faith wrapped up in most of his arguments.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

RTFM:
*the number of people who actually viewed the videos is much much lower.

IOW, these numbers are for those who've viewed the tweet in their feeds, but not the videos, which is likely thousands of times lower.

Even if Carlson got on 25% of his lowest number of viewers, it's still more than CNN and MSNBC get in prime time combined.

The problem is no one really knows how to evaluate internet content like podcasts and video streaming in a manner that's analogous to Nielsen ratings.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Nowhere in your examples does President Biden condone or call for violence. You are so full of crap, Mike Whell. smh

Don't shake it too hard Bob. Something might fall out. Of course, if I suggested that the sky is blue, you'd say I was full of crap about that too.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

In any event, there's a load of bad faith wrapped up in most of his arguments.

The above written by the least self-aware human on the planet.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Don't shake it too hard Bob. Something might fall out. Of course, if I suggested that the sky is blue, you'd say I was full of crap about that too.

edit - simply not worth the keystrokes responding to this degenerate troll

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

The above written by the least self-aware human on the planet.

So, you actually believe that Biden promotes political violence in a manner equivalent to Donald Trump?

[finnbow]

Here's a legal analysis of the injunction by the MAGA judge. Shortcomings of the injunction are as follows:

1. Missouri and Louisiana appear to lack standing to bring this lawsuit.
   
2. The government has a measure of legal authority to regulate broadcasted speech.
   
3. There’s a big factual question as to whether the government actually engaged in coercion rather than, well, just talking with the tech firms.
   
4. The district court took the preposterous position that Twitter, Google, and Facebook are controlled by the Biden administration.
   
5. The injunction binds untold numbers of regular federal employees from speaking—while ignoring that they have First Amendment rights too.

https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/right-...dia-injunction

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, you actually believe that Biden promotes political violence in a manner equivalent to Donald Trump?

That would require him to admit tRump promotes political violence.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, you actually believe that Biden promotes political violence in a manner equivalent to Donald Trump?

You ever notice how many folks in this forum sound like Biden's fall 2022 speech? It's like Biden gave the left license to use the word "fascist" and "extreme MAGA Republicans" to describe their political opponents. Sure, the left used that term before Sept 2022 to describe the right. However, I'd love to see an analysis or posts in this forum since Q4 2022. I'd bet you a six-pack that the use of the word "fascist" has risen dramatically since then.

I'd bet you another six-pack that the use of that term on other left-oriented websites has also risen significantly since then.

When the president calls his political opponents "fascists", that has an impact. It wasn't a "throwaway" remark used inadvisably during a speech.

And yes, I think at the very least the vehicular homicide case is connected to Biden's speech because the perp used the same words that Biden used to justify why he ran down an 18-year-old kid.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Here's a legal analysis of the injunction by the MAGA judge. Shortcomings of the injunction are as follows:

1. Missouri and Louisiana appear to lack standing to bring this lawsuit.
   
2. The government has a measure of legal authority to regulate broadcasted speech.
   
3. There’s a big factual question as to whether the government actually engaged in coercion rather than, well, just talking with the tech firms.
   
4. The district court took the preposterous position that Twitter, Google, and Facebook are controlled by the Biden administration.
   
5. The injunction binds untold numbers of regular federal employees from speaking—while ignoring that they have First Amendment rights too.

https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/right-...dia-injunction

I agree with these, with the exception of #4. I don't think that was what the district court was implying.

As far as coercion, the evidence strongly suggests that the FBI was not making polite, one-off requests to the social media companies to be on the lookout for suspicious content. The requests were repeated, sustained, cited specific posts or user accounts, and came in high volume. Frequent meetings, video calls, and high volumes of emails daily from the FBI. There is also evidence that the FBI and DHS were urging 3rd party entities to pressure social media companies.

If these contacts to social media were coming from, say, the FCC, I'd say you might have a point. But the contacts came from the government's premier law enforcement agency, who also communicated their displeasure in some cases that, for example, Twitter wasn't moving fast enough.

How is this not coercion?