Trump went 'ballistic' and 'scrambled' to figure out what to do next after having his Twitter account banned

[iliveonramen]

Regardless of anything he said, the reaction of the media, including Facebook and Twitter, seem to prove the accuracy of his suspicions.

I've heard various cheerleaders in my life exhorting the crowd to "Fight, fight, fight!" and not be understood to actually calling for a brawl in the stands.

Statements and directions to their followers by Democrat-Socialists over the last 4 years have been far more explicit and incendiary than anything Trump said on 1-6-21.

If he wasn’t the President he would of been prosecuted for incitement. Baby Huey got a slap on the wrist and true to form is throwing a tantrum.

 

[istodolez]

Trump has done many things that are simply astonishing producing very positive results. Leading the Government's drive to create a vaccine in a time span that his detractors said was impossible is only the latest success.

I don't believe the Pfizer vaccine took any Warped Seed money but rather got funding from the German government. But I really don't think you can say Trump did much in regards to this pandemic. Certainly he did more than Wilson did during the 1918 Flu Pandemic, but not a whole lot. He actually helped spread it with his super-spreader Nuremberg Rallies and his ambivalence towards masks. His "leadership" was mostly just a series of briefings in which he whined that he wasn't being "honored" enough.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, he DID pioneer the "inject bleach" approach to dealing with the pandemic.

Sorry, but Trump doesn't get any kudos on this whatsoever. He dropped the ball so badly it's horrific. You may not see that now, but history will.

With Respect, Biden acting on the orders of Obama, is the one that exacted the quid pro quo out of Ukraine. Trump was impeached because he asked that it be investigated.

Ummm, yeah, sure. Let's rewrite history to save poor Mr. Trump.

Trump was working against them all and doing some amazing stuff.

Yes, he worked "against" the parties by giving their multimillionaire donors big tax breaks. So brave.

He worked against about half the US by his steadfast ambivalence against white supremacists and domestic terrorists.

Finally he worked against the parties by inciting an insurrection against the Legislature in an effort to subvert the will of the US electorate in a free and fair election.

Donald J. Trump will be judged by history very harshly.

Hate combined with fear and suspicion REPLACES thought.

That was what Trump was counting on when he incited the riots in DC.

Politicians of today strive only to instill that trio. Those who don't think are deceived with less effort.

Trump's voters, being less well educated and more prone to being easily led astray, definitely found that out. SO MUCH WINNING!

 

[code1211]

The president had been whipping them up for weeks.


Weeks

Actually, the folks being whipped up were you. Those of us who like him, like him.

 

[vegas giants]

Actually, the folks being whipped up were you. Those of us who like him, like him.

You mean you

 

[CaughtInThe]

Is no one giving him cookies and warm milk at night?

 

[code1211]

Well, there's always old reliable:

Well, when I was growing up, AT&T was "The Phone Company".

It's probably time to address the current day monopolies that are buying up their competition to eliminate any competition.

We'll need to wait until the Democrat-Socialists are not strangling all parts of government. Free market opportunity needs to be a goal of the politburo for this to occur.

I wonder if something like this could rise in a different country...

It will be funny in a "Fall of America" kind of a way if the free communication we seek is available only through an alternate internet created and maintained by Communist China.

 

[code1211]

I love this. "Regardless of why they are said he has been banned and regardless of the fact that actually he did what they say he did in order to get banned, my conspiracy theory must be true instead"...

It's interesting that you are endorsing the suppression of free speech.

Is that really your intent?

 

[code1211]

Can you read with your head buried in the sand? Chase your own tail. I'm not going down your rabbit hole. What a stupid statement, utter denial.

So, once again, you are basing your wrong opinions on the propaganda to which you are addicted instead of the real world facts of the matter.

Alrighty, then!

 

[istodolez]

Well, when I was growing up, AT&T was "The Phone Company".

Yes, it was a monopoly that was sanctioned by the US government (the Bell System) and in exchange Bell Telephone agreed to fund Bell Labs for development of technology. Arguably the reason you are working on a laptop right now and have cell phones is due to that very thing (Bell Labs developments).

Monopolies, however, as you obviously know, can be abusive. We still use "natural monopolies" for the power grid, however. So we have never been truly a "laissez faire free market society".

It's probably time to address the current day monopolies that are buying up their competition to eliminate any competition.

I generally agree, so long as the systems are somehow standardized. We don't need a dozen different gauges of railroad criss-crossing the country.

We'll need to wait until the Democrat-Socialists are not strangling all parts of government.

You have NEVER lived in a laissez faire free market society. And you wouldn't want that.

 

[istodolez]

It's interesting that you are endorsing the suppression of free speech.

Is that really your intent?

Facebook and Twitter are NOT part of the "freedom of speech" concept. They are private industry. Freedom of speech merely means the government will not stop you from exercising it.

Here's a nice XKCD to explain it:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I've heard various cheerleaders in my life exhorting the crowd to "Fight, fight, fight!" and not be understood to actually calling for a brawl in the stands.

And yet, that is exactly what his followers understood him to mean on January 6th. That is why his followers immediately went to the Capitol and committed the crimes they did, because they understood.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Well, when I was growing up, AT&T was "The Phone Company".

It's probably time to address the current day monopolies that are buying up their competition to eliminate any competition.

We'll need to wait until the Democrat-Socialists are not strangling all parts of government. Free market opportunity needs to be a goal of the politburo for this to occur.

I wonder if something like this could rise in a different country...

It will be funny in a "Fall of America" kind of a way if the free communication we seek is available only through an alternate internet created and maintained by Communist China.

The thing is it's the free market that gives us the current internet environment we're in. From a purely business perspective, any company is going to want to do its best to be (or remain) the leader in its industry. It's government intervention that's leveled the playing field in the past. As for "Democrat-Socialists", they've been looking to break up some of the larger companies for the very reasons you cited.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Well, when I was growing up, AT&T was "The Phone Company".

It's probably time to address the current day monopolies that are buying up their competition to eliminate any competition.

We'll need to wait until the Democrat-Socialists are not strangling all parts of government. Free market opportunity needs to be a goal of the politburo for this to occur.

I wonder if something like this could rise in a different country...

It will be funny in a "Fall of America" kind of a way if the free communication we seek is available only through an alternate internet created and maintained by Communist China.

When AT&T was the only phone company, service was lousy, especially long distance around holidays, and it was incredibly expensive. The reason was that AT&T had no incentive to either improve service or lower costs - or adopt new technologies. However, AT&T was not broken up because of those shortcomings.

It was broken up because they had become a threat to national security. If the Pentagon wanted to send satellite communications to deployed troops, it had to pay whatever AT&T demanded. If the CIA wanted to fax something to the White House, it had to pay whatever AT&T demanded. This was quickly becoming alarming to security experts. All that was solved soon after AT&T was broken up.
The fact that prices dropped for consumers, new technologies emerged (like cellular) and sound quality improved was little more that a side effect of breaking up that massive monopoly.

 

[Deuce]

It's interesting that you are endorsing the suppression of free speech.

Is that really your intent?

Is it your intent to have the government seize control of private property and force them to provide service to everyone, including terrorists?

 

[code1211]

You mean you

Me and the other 70+ million folks that voted for him.

It's interesting that the mind numbed automatons controlled by the hate filled Democrat-Socialists propagandists believe that their hate directed actions are based on thought.

Must be what they've been told.

 

[vegas giants]

Me and the other 70+ million folks that voted for him.

It's interesting that the mind numbed automatons controlled by the hate filled Democrat-Socialists propagandists believe that their hate directed actions are based on thought.

Must be what they've been told.

I accept your concession

 

[code1211]

Facebook and Twitter are NOT part of the "freedom of speech" concept. They are private industry. Freedom of speech merely means the government will not stop you from exercising it.

Here's a nice XKCD to explain it:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Free speech is free speech.

Authorizing some to restrict it is never a good thing.

In this case, the restriction is to eliminate any voice that does not support the Democrat-Socialist political ideology.

 

[vegas giants]

Free speech is free speech.

Authorizing some to restrict it is never a good thing.

In this case, the restriction is to eliminate any voice that does not support the Democrat-Socialist political ideology.

Some speech ABSOLUTELY should be restricted

 

[code1211]

And yet, that is exactly what his followers understood him to mean on January 6th. That is why his followers immediately went to the Capitol and committed the crimes they did, because they understood.

Actually, the folks who were entering the Capital Building were doing so before he stopped speaking.

To have walked there from the site of the speech, they would have needed to leave the speech almost before the president started to speak.

 

[code1211]

The thing is it's the free market that gives us the current internet environment we're in. From a purely business perspective, any company is going to want to do its best to be (or remain) the leader in its industry. It's government intervention that's leveled the playing field in the past. As for "Democrat-Socialists", they've been looking to break up some of the larger companies for the very reasons you cited.

Terrific!

Given the obvious injustices perpetrated, I'm sure we can expect immediate action in the direction you imagine. After all, they now control the Senate, the house and the White House. NOTHING to stop them.

Unless, of course, the injustices being perpetrated are the injustices that they both desire and have worked to establish.

I suppose we'll see.

Has any Democrat-Socialist at any time proposed any legislation to impede this outrageous and ongoing attack on free speech?

 

[ElChupacabra]

Terrific!

Given the obvious injustices perpetrated, I'm sure we can expect immediate action in the direction you imagine. After all, they now control the Senate, the house and the White House. NOTHING to stop them.

Unless, of course, the injustices being perpetrated are the injustices that they both desire and have worked to establish.

I suppose we'll see.

Has any Democrat-Socialist at any time proposed any legislation to impede this outrageous and ongoing attack on free speech?

Are you advocating the defense of speech that directs threats on the lives of others? Free speech does have its limitations legally.

 

[code1211]

When AT&T was the only phone company, service was lousy, especially long distance around holidays, and it was incredibly expensive. The reason was that AT&T had no incentive to either improve service or lower costs - or adopt new technologies. However, AT&T was not broken up because of those shortcomings.

It was broken up because they had become a threat to national security. If the Pentagon wanted to send satellite communications to deployed troops, it had to pay whatever AT&T demanded. If the CIA wanted to fax something to the White House, it had to pay whatever AT&T demanded. This was quickly becoming alarming to security experts. All that was solved soon after AT&T was broken up.
The fact that prices dropped for consumers, new technologies emerged (like cellular) and sound quality improved was little more that a side effect of breaking up that massive monopoly.

So you are in agreement with me.

Breaking up monopolistic giant corporations that intentionally stifle competition is a good thing.

It's time that the newest monopolistic giant corporations stifling competition be divided for the good of the country.

 

[code1211]

Is it your intent to have the government seize control of private property and force them to provide service to everyone, including terrorists?

Not sure what you're talking about in this.

Twitter shut down the account of the POTUS, but left the Ayatollah's account up and running. No government intervention required.

Why would the government intervene to stop a company from doing already what the government wants them to do anyway?

 

[Craig234]

Are you advocating the defense of speech that directs threats on the lives of others? Free speech does have its limitations legally.

It's notable that while speech leading to immediate violence that might injure a few people is a serious crime, speech in the form of massive societal propaganda that leads to policies causing far more harm - trillions taken from the American people, killing thousands for things like lack of healthcare, are 'protected speech'.

 

[tres borrachos]

Regardless of anything he said, the reaction of the media, including Facebook and Twitter, seem to prove the accuracy of his suspicions.

I've heard various cheerleaders in my life exhorting the crowd to "Fight, fight, fight!" and not be understood to actually calling for a brawl in the stands.

Statements and directions to their followers by Democrat-Socialists over the last 4 years have been far more explicit and incendiary than anything Trump said on 1-6-21.

How many murders happened in recent memory because cheerleaders yelled "fight fight fight"?