Topic: [BET] Trump or Harris 2024, Poker Player vs suchmoon (Read 2711 times)

LaDeDa... LOL. Trump is starting his 'Jack Smith' style trial preparations against the Biden Administration. If Trump was guilty of a little, the Biden Admin is guilty of a mountain.


Sunday Live: Trump Goes on Total Warpath Against the Deep State!

---

https://banned.video/watch?id=674d2a7d234c12a36933ee54&__cf_chl_f_tk=jcWdiFmXzUxKHXLwwWk2rDCP4ywn6QlA2zbbqYu0OSc-1733194511-1.0.1.1-9HBi4m8UMQPa.oT7SA2VlkTJvOZtgxZn.jEJSUzPXik

Sunday Live: Trump Goes on Total Warpath Against the Deep State! Incoming Administration Announces Plan to Prosecute Biden Admin For Human Trafficking Sex Slavery - FULL SHOW - 12/01/2024
...

---

Someone is still on the high of the after-elections I can see. But I think that the "woke" thing is here to stay. However the Democrats will have to figure out if that should be the main focus of their future campaigns because it is divisive, controversial and brings little for the middle american out there which is ok with whatever social freedoms and diversity, but is more concern with practical matters.

Sjw&woke Kingdom is collapsing. The west will once again become home to virtuous women and honest men. The globalists are on the run and they are making their last moves to start another world war before Trump comes to power but they are in denial.

Nothing can stop Trump Train.

The world is fed up with their woke crap.

It is very unlikely that Trump has 6 B in NET worth. He tends to brag about his assets, particularly buildings - that you can value quite imaginatively , but he does not speak of his liabilities.

There is no doubt Daddy Trump was the right type of businessman to get something built in New York - which is not much about counting exactly - but his son is just the classic persona that thinks he is smart, but is pretty average. Funny thing is that Trump has not made his accounting public and fought a lot to keep it secret.
The family is kind of good at keeping secrets and having a go at make-up.


dumBAss, go post some walltext to with links to your favourite conspiratard somewhere else and let the adults in the room speak.

Huh. You're smarter than I'd have guessed.

Since you don't have me on 'ignore', look into the things that I talk about. My disclaimer is that I make mistakes like everybody else. But the things that I show are either great truths, or point to great truths.

I'm not quite following what you're complaining about. I haven't responded in your thread about $100k (just picked a random example from your post history). Does that mean I'm biased against Bitcoin?

If I had said something different in another context than what I'm saying here, you'd have a point. Even then it's kinda pointless argument, as whataboutism tends to be. If "leftists" do it, and Trump does it, is that a good thing or a bad thing?


Actually they can and they do and the law and common sense is on their side. There is no obligation for a private business to provide an online platform for everything, just like there is no obligation for me to allow you to have a speech in my backyard. The government can run their own social media site if it deems it necessary as a public service (and the taxpayers approve) and arguably such a site would need to allow all sorts of shit on it, similar to how publicly-funded universities are providing venues for various nutjobs from different sides of the political spectrum.


That's kinda the opposite of reality. Sites can allow this type of user-generated content and there are some that do.

The funny thing is that the proposed changes to (or repeal of) section 230 would not create more "freedom" in online speech. Most likely it would result in more control on content, as it would subject sites to more liability if "bad" content gets posted by users.


That's not the question I asked. Would you be ok if the government mandated it?


Big math genius in action: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/15/politics/video/trump-interview-tariffs-bloomberg-chicago-digvid

No, it doesn't stand because we are not talking about you not commenting on one thread, we are talking about you not saying anything at all in all the repeated (and there have been many) times I have complained in different posts about censorship by left-wing parties (like the current one in the UK) or censorship plans (like Kerry's and Walz's).

What a coincidence that the other two who like you defend objective reality in an unbiased way (but who always tend to agree with the democrats) didn't comment on this either.


Yes, there is. The case of Fox news (or CNN, it doesn't matter) is different because if they call me, I can limit what I want to talk about, and so can they.

Facebook, on the other hand, is a social network that cannot limit the right to freedom of expression because they feel like it, in the same way that they cannot allow people to talk about the extermination of blacks or homosexuals for supposedly being inferior if they feel like it.


No it isn't as explained above.


I don't know anything about truth social and about X I see quite a few leftist opinions now that they are used to censorship and Musk allows right-wing views they can't stand it and want to go elsewhere. But, yes, here there is no obligation on this very forum and the owner being an ancap lets you leftists express yourselves freely.


I'm sure you can find plenty of things to criticise Trump for other than such ridiculousness. A guy who has almost $6B in net worth isn't great at basic math?


There's a funny thing about you, you know, I don't have you on ignore but it's as if I have you.

You mean you haven't signed up yet? Lol.

Don’t Cry, Cryo! 😂 Need a Break from Trump’s Term? Freeze Yourself for 4 Years!

I am afraid that despite Trump being able to count with the fingers, he is not great at basic math. It may be required that the "deep state" - AKA people who understand consequences - will have to be DOGEd like the General Attorneys, the public servants, etc...

See, nothing that Trump cannot short out. It does not mean that he will not need a third term... and a fourth if he is not worm food by then. He is ok with that I think.

The big media outlets like Facebook and Youtube only destroy themselves when they censor content. You can see this by how X and others have grown.

I would, put it this way:

Anyone (legal or individual entity) should be able to construct their own rule-set, within the law.
Then, they should allow people to willingly join them, conforming with their rules.
In this territory, the entity that owns it, is allowed to do and say whatever they want.
Nobody else (legal or individual entity) is allowed to enforce changes to this set of rules.

Having said that, Facebook, TikTok, Bitcointalk, YouTube etc. have their own sets of rules and nobody can knowingly ignore them, no matter who they are.
On the other hand, however, Apogio's Forum (hypothetical forum), could have my set of rules and I could express my opinion however I wanted.

This might be because what you call "censorship" in social media is what also allows sites like Bitcointalk to exist but my point still stands, me not commenting in some other thread is irrelevant here.


There is no fundamental right for you to go and post anything you want on facebook, just like there is no fundamental right for you to go on Fox News and talk about anything you want. You can however run your own site any way you want (or pick a site that fits your needs, I'm sure there are many), and that's far more important than the content on sites run by someone else. Which by the way is also likely at risk under the new administration, considering their position against net neutrality. ISP censoring your internet would arguably be a much bigger threat to your free speech than any individual site or media platform rules.


What I'm saying here is consistent with what I've said in the past, so your implication is misplaced.

Would you say the same if Biden tried to force Truth Social or Musk's Not-Twitter to publish at least 50% of left-wing content?

You haven't commented on any of them at all. Neither did you then when I commented on the censorship occurring in social media in different threads nor have you done so more recently when I referenced Kerry's and Walz's statements in several threads in this section.


No, that's not what we're talking about. Fundamental rights should not be left to the whim of private companies; they should be respected regardless of company policy. Here I have been able to express myself without censorship in a way that I would not have been able to do in social media because here free speech is defended and you are not censored for your ideas.


Oh, okay, now you're really worried about the First Amendment, aren't you?

You can't possibly expect me to comment in every thread but I have said many times in many different threads that social media sites should be able to have and enforce their own rules (within the law of course), that's their free speech rights. Bitcointalk can ban any shitposter, Elon can ban anyone who criticizes him on whatever he's calling his site today. Trump (or Biden) should not be able to tell how to moderate those sites. First amendment is about the government not making laws restricting free speech, i.e. the opposite of the attempts of these new trumplings to force media to publish certain content. And to preempt any further "whataboutism" - if Hillary or Obama or George Washington did anything like that, it would be wrong too.


It would, but the deep state (aka basic math and economics) will not allow it. Trump will need a third term to really fix it.

I don't want to deviate too much about what suchmoon has said. Apparently he is very concerned about alleged censorship that could supposedly kill bitcointalk (lol) but he wasn't concerned about this:

John Kerry calls the First Amendment a 'major block' to stopping 'disinformation'

VP Candidate Tim Walz on "There's No Guarantee to Free Speech on Misinformation or Hate Speech, and Especially Around Our Democracy"

Some time ago, he did not make a single comment in this thread:

WTF? YouTube censoring Senator Rand Paul videos?

So about social media censoring people who don't think like him he says nothing, about the Democrats wanting to reform the first amendment and create a body (controlled by them) to censor what can be said or not either and now due to this appointment he comes to tell us that we are going to lose freedom.

Lol.

Did you like the appointment of Jay Bhattacharya? I think it deserves a few beers with popcorn, and because it's been more than a decade since I smoked a joint otherwise I'd have one too.

For the moment, Musk has spoken against the F-35 project saying that is better to have drones and that it is too expensive. I am struggling not to take this as an indication of working for the "enemy". Let's see what else does he want to "cost cut" or "optimise". My guess, he has seen the Pentagon budgets and wants a slice of it.

Trump has announced (which may or may not happen) immediate tariffs with Mexico and Canada. I do not think that will make things cheaper in the US, will it?

Yes, well, we'll have to see what that translates into. I too remember in 2016 a lot of people saying that if Trump won he was going to get us into WW3, and this 2024 another much of the same, when it's not exactly Trump who is playing to see if the world starts throwing nukes at each other.

By the way in all these years when I talked about the censorship that the democrats wanted to carry out, or the one they are carrying out in the UK, you did not say anything. It is clear to me that you are only bothered by censorship when it is from one side.

Trump picked a Project 2025 nutjob Brendan Carr as his FCC chairman nominee. Carr apparently wants to get rid of section 230 among other things (like revoking licenses of broadcasters he doesn't like), which is basically what allows sites like Bitcointalk to exist without getting sued out of existence.

I kinda faintly remember someone claiming that Trump represents the "free world" versus the "communism" of the other candidate LOL

I have not read the book, but I can agree with the principle that population growth does not by itself generate scarcity, however despite how wealth is generated eventually has to be assigned to the control of individuals. That is where there is actually a cake and that is something that the large fortunes of this planet have clear that the less taxes, the more wealth is concentrated on them.

Nice talking to you too. I do respect arguments, I am just tired of hearing over an over slogans, accusations, lies... all without any further proof or rationale and let's face it, politics in the US have become extremely divisive - not the best choice for a country that is about to face the growth of their biggest adversaries.

You see, here we are not going to agree because we start from a fundamental difference of concept.


Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Planet


But anyway, nice debating with you without the discussion becoming too heated.