Jump to content

Good Luck Getting Parler, Bullshitters.


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, shaggy said:

Check out the Congressional Reich led the Insurrection Thread.. THought I saw a pic from the day before with vests etc...  

I don't doubt for a minute Rep. Boebert was complicit.  Just pointing out the photo that's been circulating, which I shared, is NOT from last Tuesday, as claimed.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 713
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I agree with you on what Parler was doing, and would not have any problem with the CEOs of all the companies jumping on Zoom to talk about what a dangerous platform Parler was. I just don't see any po

BLM is not the other side of MAGA/Trumpers. BLM is a movement to raise awareness of systemic racism. They may be less hostile to Dems since Dems are willing to listen to them, but they are not a polit

Collusion isn't a crime.

Posted Images

3 hours ago, LenP said:

There is a big difference between insufficient moderating of FB and Twitter vs Parler whose primary purpose was to skirt election law and organize Trump's cosplay army.

Most of the stuff on FB is people taking pictures of their cat, food, kids, etc. Sprinkled in with the kids, cats, and food pics are some groups which have a sketchy purpose and which arguably do not get shut down as fast as they should. One example of this was the group that Kyle Rittenhouse was connected with, I have no doubt that there were groups causing trouble and organized on FB and other platforms which were not RW too.  

The issue for Parler is that their site is expressly for the folks who get kicked out of other places and expressly for things which are forbidden. It is not that they don't do a good enough job policing their content, it is that policing their content would be in direct conflict with their mission. 

I would also point out that this is not the govt shutting them down, but other businesses refusing to do business with them. There are a large contingent of retailers who refuse to do business with Amazon even going as far as refusing to use SAAS vendors when some of the software might be running in AWS. They will insist that the SAAS vendor run a fully separate environment in GCP or Azure or they will not use the vendor. What happened with Parler is much more akin to this rather than govt censorship. Parler was toxic and posed numerous risks, although the reputational risk alone would justify ending the relationship as their piddly footprint would not justify even the smallest headache, and this was likely going to be a big one.  

This is not some sinister move to silence RW voices, not even crazy ones, it is a simple business decision. I would prefer it were more than a business decision and that these mega corps had grown a conscience, but that is just not the case. The RW voices, even the crazy ones, will continue to have a place to air their grievances, they just will have fewer places to skirt election laws and organize coups. 

I'm not familiar with Parler but I find these claims suspect. That Parler's “primary purpose was to skirt election law and organize Trump's cosplay army”. That they have expressed that the site is “for the folks who get kicked out of other places and expressly for things which are forbidden”.

Parler took a hands off approach to content to comply with section 230. Once the service starts editing content they become responsible for content, unless they have politicians in high places. It's clear that congress needs to revisit this issue because Parler, Twitter and FB have all had content posted that shouldn't be there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm not familiar with Parler but I find these claims suspect. That Parler's “primary purpose was to skirt election law and organize Trump's cosplay army”. That they have expressed that the site is “for the folks who get kicked out of other places and expressly for things which are forbidden”.

Parler took a hands off approach to content to comply with section 230. Once the service starts editing content they become responsible for content, unless they have politicians in high places. It's clear that congress needs to revisit this issue because Parler, Twitter and FB have all had content posted that shouldn't be there.

If I am not mistaken, Parler had a TOS they weren't adhering to.  That would be the reason Apple issued their demand Parler come up with a system they'd enforce or get dropped.

Parler was pretending to not allow folks to organize for a violent overthrow of the US government.

Then, they sat back and did nothing as that exact movement developed on their platform.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

Reporter: “George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.”

Trump: “George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down — excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?”

Reporter: “I do love Thomas Jefferson.”

Trump: “Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

“So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike G said:

After thinking about this...if she tweeted what she did about Nancy, DURING the riot, they must suspect she'll do the same in the future?

Again, I think we're going to be hearing more from her soon.  Or about her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

If I am not mistaken, Parler had a TOS they weren't adhering to.  That would be the reason Apple issued their demand Parler come up with a system they'd enforce or get dropped.

Parler was pretending to not allow folks to organize for a violent overthrow of the US government.

Then, they sat back and did nothing as that exact movement developed on their platform.

If so it like a bit of a bind ...Comply with the TOS or comply with the law.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.

Lol.  So the other people marching and chanting with the racists weren't racist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm not familiar with Parler but I find these claims suspect. That Parler's “primary purpose was to skirt election law and organize Trump's cosplay army”. That they have expressed that the site is “for the folks who get kicked out of other places and expressly for things which are forbidden”.

Parler took a hands off approach to content to comply with section 230. Once the service starts editing content they become responsible for content, unless they have politicians in high places. It's clear that congress needs to revisit this issue because Parler, Twitter and FB have all had content posted that shouldn't be there.

Most of what it was actually used for was driving contributions and organizing Trump rallies. That was the core of their base and the core of their activities. They were actively censoring content which disparaged Trump, but let calls for violent overthrows of the government slide. To me this is much more like when the govt went after file sharing sites. The argument that the file sharing sites made was that they let people share any files, so if someone posted pirated material they should not be responsible. The problem for them was that they had nearly zero usage aside from illegal pirated material. I suspect this was the intention from the beginning with Parler, since if the intention was to build a real business the architecture of their systems would reflect the intention to build a sustainable business. It did not look like that at all, instead it looked like it was tech that was intended to be discarded when it was no longer needed. So I think that the services who distanced themselves from Parler did so because they saw the same thing I did. I did not sit in their strategy sessions, so I could be wrong and it could be that they just made a series of really terrible decisions, but even if that is the case it doesn't change the fact that other businesses have every right to distance themselves from another business which has become toxic. I can say with absolute certainty that the decision was a business decision not a political one. If there was less business risk in continuing the relationship, then they would have continued it. The revenue does not even register for the companies in question, it would be substantially less than a rounding error. So it was all about risk, and there was a lot of risk in continuing to do business with Parler. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LenP said:

Most of what it was actually used for was driving contributions and organizing Trump rallies. That was the core of their base and the core of their activities. They were actively censoring content which disparaged Trump, but let calls for violent overthrows of the government slide. To me this is much more like when the govt went after file sharing sites. The argument that the file sharing sites made was that they let people share any files, so if someone posted pirated material they should not be responsible. The problem for them was that they had nearly zero usage aside from illegal pirated material. I suspect this was the intention from the beginning with Parler, since if the intention was to build a real business the architecture of their systems would reflect the intention to build a sustainable business. It did not look like that at all, instead it looked like it was tech that was intended to be discarded when it was no longer needed. So I think that the services who distanced themselves from Parler did so because they saw the same thing I did. I did not sit in their strategy sessions, so I could be wrong and it could be that they just made a series of really terrible decisions, but even if that is the case it doesn't change the fact that other businesses have every right to distance themselves from another business which has become toxic. I can say with absolute certainty that the decision was a business decision not a political one. If there was less business risk in continuing the relationship, then they would have continued it. The revenue does not even register for the companies in question, it would be substantially less than a rounding error. So it was all about risk, and there was a lot of risk in continuing to do business with Parler. 

I don't know your source but from what I've seen they are denying editing content.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

 

Which law are you dreaming about now?

 

I know you hate capitalism, but I don't know of any law yet that says you MUST accept any customer (other than protected classes, and Parler is not one of them)

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, LenP said:

 So I think that the services who distanced themselves from Parler did so because they saw the same thing I did. I did not sit in their strategy sessions, so I could be wrong and it could be that they just made a series of really terrible decisions, but even if that is the case it doesn't change the fact that other businesses have every right to distance themselves from another business which has become toxic. I can say with absolute certainty that the decision was a business decision not a political one. If there was less business risk in continuing the relationship, then they would have continued it. The revenue does not even register for the companies in question, it would be substantially less than a rounding error. So it was all about risk, and there was a lot of risk in continuing to do business with Parler. 

Back when the rap music was getting a bad rap many of the major record labels were "distancing" themselves from the artist...  The found a work-a-round with getting smaller labels to do the scutwrok while they took a percentage for distribution..  If there is money to be made, they will find a way to keep their finger in the pie...  it was how my brother made his fortune... 

As for Parler or some other conservative forums they'll be back.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:
27 minutes ago, Dog said:

But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.

Lol.  So the other people marching and chanting with the racists weren't racist?

I'm sure there were very fine people in that mob.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect he's buying stuff from Amazon just so he can leave a review.

Yeah, the hand towels were great, but I was robbed, ROOBBED I tell you last election.

Wasn't even close.  74 Million votes I got.  They took the insides out of the machines.

There were ballots under the tables.  I won.  I WON!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gab.com creator (who loves to post on his own site) is now posting reminders that inciting or promoting violence is against the TOS on his site, and encouraging people to report posts with that kind of content.  Hmmm, bet they don't have much in the way of moderation.  Bet he is going to regret having the Parler crowd jumping over to his site, and planning their next move in the insurrection.  He will not be able to control what happens next.

For now, though, he is posting self-congratulatory messages over the expansion of his site, 1.7M new users since last Wednesday.  

Parler is toast. 

Gab will be harder to de-platform because they are hosted on a RW server company.  We should do a little investigation and see who else is hosted there (Epik.com).

Batshit crazy QAnon messages are popping up in the "Most Popular" feed on the main page.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, sweet  -  a comedy break. 

 

6 hours ago, Dog said:

I'm not familiar with Parler but I find these claims suspect. (...) That they have expressed that the site is “for the folks who get kicked out of other places and expressly for things which are forbidden”.

That was their whole shtick. 

#freespeech.  #censorship.

 

6 hours ago, Dog said:

If so it like a bit of a bind ...Comply with the TOS or comply with the law.

The law and the contract are both saying the same thing to Amazon: drop Parler. 

There's no conflict.  Comes a point, if Amazon doesn't drop the contract, Amazon's taking on part of the liability. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nacradriver said:

... 

As for Parler or some other conservative forums they'll be back.

 

 

There you go equating conservative with batshit crazy.

In most services conservative voices are welcome not so much the qanon crazies calling for skinning kids alive while making the parents watch because they are not trump supporters.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paxton is following the old playbook. Bluff, double down, and hope you've more chips...

Dunno exactly who is technicaly on the otherside of Paxton's bet.

His mentor,Trump, now seems to facing an opponent with a much bigger pile of chips...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VhmSays said:

There you go equating conservative with batshit crazy.

In most services conservative voices are welcome not so much the qanon crazies calling for skinning kids alive while making the parents watch because they are not trump supporters.

You're right to point this out, but the Q crazies are giving the right wing a bad name.  It must be tough to be a conservative these days, particularly in the USA.  Note no purple font, I think conservative voices need to be heard as well.  I have no idea what should be done about the Q whackos.  An acquaintance of mine in the sailing community has gone Q and all I can think of is an intervention done by some of his closest friends.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 1:36 PM, bpm57 said:

Looks like the "line" is disagree with a leftist. I would of expected "antifa" to be against actions like this, but they are cheering it on like the good little leftists they are.

So Antifa don't use SM to foment rebellion, organise and gleefully hate tweet?. Make up your bleeding mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dog said:

I don't know your source but from what I've seen they are denying editing content.

Editing and moderating are two different things. FB, Twitter, and Parler as well, do not edit content. All three of them do moderate, they just moderate differently. Platforms like Youtube are constantly moderating to avoid illegal or pirated content. FB and Twitter are constantly moderating to enforce their TOS, an example of this was FB banning ads or posts for guns for sale. Parler moderated content as well, but their moderation was to limit content that challenged RW orthodoxy. FB does not to this day limit content that promotes a particular political ideology, instead they limit specific things like promoting debunked conspiracy theories which could endanger the public. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dog said:

I'm not familiar with Parler but I find these claims suspect. That Parler's “primary purpose was to skirt election law and organize Trump's cosplay army”. That they have expressed that the site is “for the folks who get kicked out of other places and expressly for things which are forbidden”.

Parler took a hands off approach to content to comply with section 230. Once the service starts editing content they become responsible for content, unless they have politicians in high places. It's clear that congress needs to revisit this issue because Parler, Twitter and FB have all had content posted that shouldn't be there.

finally something sensible from the the mutt, have a treat.

Pedigree Tasty Bites Dog Treats Cheesy Nibbles with Cheese and Beef, 140g:  Amazon.co.uk: Pet Supplies

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, LenP said:

Editing and moderating are two different things. FB, Twitter, and Parler as well, do not edit content. All three of them do moderate, they just moderate differently. Platforms like Youtube are constantly moderating to avoid illegal or pirated content. FB and Twitter are constantly moderating to enforce their TOS, an example of this was FB banning ads or posts for guns for sale. Parler moderated content as well, but their moderation was to limit content that challenged RW orthodoxy. FB does not to this day limit content that promotes a particular political ideology, instead they limit specific things like promoting debunked conspiracy theories which could endanger the public. 

Well your representation of Parler differs from how they represent themselves.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, mad said:

finally something sensible from the the mutt, have a treat.

Pedigree Tasty Bites Dog Treats Cheesy Nibbles with Cheese and Beef, 140g:  Amazon.co.uk: Pet Supplies

Be careful.  The mutt didn't suddenly decided this on his own.  He had to wait until it became a problem for the republicans.

230 should be changed.  Online speech should be treated the EXACT same as out-loud speech, and providers of platforms should be responsible to hold their posters to United States law as best they can.  Threaten someone with violence?  Get banned.  Organize a riot?  Get banned.  The problem with the internet is that people are FREE from the consequences of their speech, and that needs to change.

It will, over time.

But don't applaud the mutt.  He's only upset because this intruded into his political spectrum.  Not because he actually gives a fuck about free speech or its consequences.  I've never seen anything but self-interest out of him.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Dog said:

Well your representation of Parler differs from how they represent themselves.

So?  What's representative of Parler is it's users.  I've been there.  It's basically an online rally for militant, racist, conspiracy driven Trump supporters.  It was shocking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

So?  What's representative of Parler is it's users.  I've been there.  It's basically an online rally for militant, racist, conspiracy driven Trump supporters.  It was shocking.

You'll have to excuse me for not taking your representation seriously.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dog said:

Speaking of reading, are you now clear on the "fine people on both sides" thing?

Yes, very clear that Trump feels like people who march with white supremacists and hold onto centuries old notions of the racist, losing confederacy are good people.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Swimsailor said:

Yes, very clear that Trump feels like people who march with white supremacists and hold onto centuries old notions of the racist losing confederacy are good people.  

Ha ha ha.... well if that's true it's not found in the text.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dog said:

Ha ha ha.... well if that's true it's not found in the text.

See, there you go denying what you see in front of you.  He explained very clearly he was referring to those who didn’t want confederate statues removed.  He also very clearly said there were good people marching with the racists and white supremacists.  I swear, do you even think when you type?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swimsailor said:

See, there you go denying what you see in front of you.  He explained very clearly he was referring to those who didn’t want confederate statues removed.  He also very clearly said there were good people marching with the racists and white supremacists.  I swear, do you even think when you type?

With you formidable powers of comprehension you should be able to tell the class who it was that Trump explicitly said he was not referring to and should be totally condemned?

You can do it, the truth will set you free.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

With you formidable powers of comprehension you should be able to tell the class who it was that Trump explicitly said he was not referring to and should be totally condemned?

You can do it, the truth will set you free.

With your formidable powers of logic and reason you should be able to tell the class if people who march with racists are racists or not.  Trump says a lot of things.  Please tell me if good people would be marching with racists.

Edit:  you wouldn’t know the truth if it kicked you in the balls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

With your formidable powers of logic and reason you should be able to tell the class if people who march with racists are racists or not.  Trump says a lot of things.  Please tell me if good people would be marching with racists.

Edit:  you wouldn’t know the truth if it kicked you in the balls.

In your case the truth seems to be a matter of convenience.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

In your case the truth seems to be a matter of convenience.

The truth- if you're marching around exercising your American right to protest, and a lot of the people in the crowd with you are waving Nazi flags and shouting racist slogans.... if you stay in that crowd, you're one of them

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

Yes, very clear that Trump feels like people who march with white supremacists and hold onto centuries old notions of the racist, losing confederacy are good people.  

You are correct and as usual, Dog is lying.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Answer the question... if a person marches with racists, are they good people?

There were "fine" people and there were Nazis and white supremacist's demonstrating against the removal of monuments . Trump did not say all the people demonstrating were fine people and he explicitly singled out the white supremacist's and Nazis and said they should be condemned totally. You have been duped, now you know the truth. Whether you're capable of accepting the truth is another matter.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dog said:

There were "fine" people and there were Nazis and white supremacist's demonstrating against the removal of monuments . Trump did not say all the people demonstrating were fine people and he explicitly singled out the white supremacist's and Nazis and said they should be condemned totally. You have been duped, now you know the truth. Whether you're capable of accepting the truth is another matter.

You’re the one who has been duped into thinking fine people can march with white supremacists.  You’ve also been duped into thinking confederate statues honor history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The truth- if you're marching around exercising your American right to protest, and a lot of the people in the crowd with you are waving Nazi flags and shouting racist slogans.... if you stay in that crowd, you're one of them

- DSK

That's a great point.  Those people are getting a "pass" for their actions.....marching with racists.

And every one, if identified, will claim they're not racist.  But they are fine bumping up the numbers of the crowd FOR the racists.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dog said:

There were "fine" people and there were Nazis and white supremacist's demonstrating against the removal of monuments ........

To repeat:

The truth- if you're marching around exercising your American right to protest, and a lot of the people in the crowd with you are waving Nazi flags and shouting racist slogans.... if you stay in that crowd, you're one of them

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

You’re the one who has been duped into thinking fine people can march with white supremacists.  You’ve also been duped into thinking confederate statues honor history.

There are in fact fine people who oppose the destruction of monuments. That there are also assholes who also oppose the destruction of monuments does not make the fine people into assholes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Dog said:

There were "fine" people and there were Nazis and white supremacist's demonstrating against the removal of monuments . Trump did not say all the people demonstrating were fine people and he explicitly singled out the white supremacist's and Nazis and said they should be condemned totally. You have been duped, now you know the truth. Whether you're capable of accepting the truth is another matter.

There are no "fine" people marching alongside Nazis.

They may not BE Nazis, but they're OK with Nazis.

That ain't "fine"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

 

I'd like to thank someone for ensuring that Dog has the correct amount of downvotes. All is again right with the forum.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

To repeat:

The truth- if you're marching around exercising your American right to protest, and a lot of the people in the crowd with you are waving Nazi flags and shouting racist slogans.... if you stay in that crowd, you're one of them

- DSK

Bullshit...A decent person can demonstrate against the destruction of monuments and a Nazi can demonstrate against the destruction of monuments but that does not make the decent person a Nazi. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

There are no "fine" people marching alongside Nazis.

They may not BE Nazis, but they're OK with Nazis.

That ain't "fine"

Trump did not cite people marching with Nazis. He referred to people on either side of the monuments debate. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:
27 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The truth- if you're marching around exercising your American right to protest, and a lot of the people in the crowd with you are waving Nazi flags and shouting racist slogans.... if you stay in that crowd, you're one of them

 

Bullshit...A decent person can demonstrate against the destruction of monuments and a Nazi can demonstrate against the destruction of monuments but that does not make the decent person a Nazi.  

A "decent person" is not going to march/protest alongside a Nazi/KKKer

Birds of a feather and all that.

Of course, the fact that YOU think it's fine, is no surprise

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

A "decent person" is not going to march/protest alongside a Nazi/KKKer

Birds of a feather and all that.

Of course, the fact that YOU think it's fine, is no surprise

- DSK

Who said anything about marching....Can there be a decent person who protests against the destruction of monuments.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Be careful.  The mutt didn't suddenly decided this on his own.  He had to wait until it became a problem for the republicans.

230 should be changed.  Online speech should be treated the EXACT same as out-loud speech, and providers of platforms should be responsible to hold their posters to United States law as best they can.  Threaten someone with violence?  Get banned.  Organize a riot?  Get banned.  The problem with the internet is that people are FREE from the consequences of their speech, and that needs to change.

It will, over time.

But don't applaud the mutt.  He's only upset because this intruded into his political spectrum.  Not because he actually gives a fuck about free speech or its consequences.  I've never seen anything but self-interest out of him.

Good point, my mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

Who said anything about marching....Can there be a decent person who protests against the destruction of monuments.

Not with Nazis and KKKers

You see the difference between "protesting against the destruction of monuments"  and the "standing in solidarity with Nazis"??

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Nice try at changing the topic. 

Expect hours of "that's not what I said" and "that's not what you meant" and "check post x"

It's what he does.  It's how he is.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

Your posting history.

See thats what you and most rw gopers are like. You see something that gives you confirmation bias. You don't check it out. You just accept its true because it has to be true to fulfill your bias.

I've been in Parler,  it was a cesspool of anger, gung ho big noting and praise for the anointed leader. 

Oh and lots of blessings, God speed, and what ever else could help gee up the ignorant.

Intentionally ignorant,  like you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

With you formidable powers of comprehension you should be able to tell the class who it was that Trump explicitly said he was not referring to and should be totally condemned?

You can do it, the truth will set you free.

Don't you recall Trump had to be badgered into saying nazis and their elk were not acceptable?

He resisted so much,  because they are the rotten core of his base.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

A "decent person" is not going to march/protest alongside a Nazi/KKKer

Birds of a feather and all that.

Of course, the fact that YOU think it's fine, is no surprise

- DSK

In order to believe that Trump was saying there were fine people among the Nazis and supremacists you have to ignore what he actually said. Your hate for Trump trumps your commitment to truth.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, dfw_sailor said:

Don't you recall Trump had to be badgered into saying nazis and their elk were not acceptable?

He resisted so much,  because they are the rotten core of his base.

I don't think the transcript supports that.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dog said:

In order to believe that Trump was saying there were fine people among the Nazis and supremacists you have to ignore what he actually said. Your hate for Trump trumps your commitment to truth.

Yeah right. Trump hates nazis and supremacists.

Here's the transcript of his video his after the attempted insurrection / attempted murder of pence, Pelosi etc

"I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special.  You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home at peace"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Dog said:

I don't think the transcript supports that.

Uh huh.

His Charleston denouncement wasn't until 2 days later. Look it up. 

2 days of festering. Whips up his racist base until he is forced to water it down a few days later.  

Trump 101, every fucking time. 

And it seems you are OK with that? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dfw_sailor said:

Uh huh.

His Charleston denouncement wasn't until 2 days later. Look it up. 

2 days of festering. Whips up his racist base until he is forced to water it down a few days later.  

Trump 101, every fucking time. 

And it seems you are OK with that? 

 

His denouncement followed immediately after the misconstrued "fine people" comment.

"and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally".

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting twist, the Washington Post is reporting that Facebook played a pivotal role in the organization of the Capitol riot. Did Big Tech just use the riot as pretext for the destruction of Parler, it appears they might have de-platformed the wrong service.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Here's an interesting twist, the Washington Post is reporting that Facebook played a pivotal role in the organization of the Capitol riot. Did Big Tech just use the riot as pretext for the destruction of Parler, it appears they might have de-platformed the wrong service.

Who is "they"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Here's an interesting twist, the Washington Post is reporting that Facebook played a pivotal role in the organization of the Capitol riot. Did Big Tech just use the riot as pretext for the destruction of Parler, it appears they might have de-platformed the wrong service.

Sounds to me like Parler should have had their own servers from the get go.  Shitty business people it sounds like.  Are suggesting failing capitalists should be propped up by government or charity?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

His denouncement followed immediately after the misconstrued "fine people" comment.

"and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally".

It happened August 12. Trump did not denounce nazis and their elk until August 15.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Bullshit...A decent person can demonstrate against the destruction of monuments and a Nazi can demonstrate against the destruction of monuments but that does not make the decent person a Nazi. 

If they are standing next to each other/walking in the same direction = Nazi...  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dog said:

Here's an interesting twist, the Washington Post is reporting that Facebook played a pivotal role in the organization of the Capitol riot. Did Big Tech just use the riot as pretext for the destruction of Parler, it appears they might have de-platformed the wrong service.

Why in the fuck would big tech want to take out Parlor??  It was a rounding error on their bottom line.  Insignificant in their world.  You really think that they spent 1 second of their valuable time plotting to take down Parlor.  WOW...  You are in Waaaaayyy deep. 

And of course FB twit et all played a pivotal role in the shitgibbons Coup attempt.  What's your point???

Link to post
Share on other sites