Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Did ya'll really think there would be no consequence to all the lying? That he could lie and lie and lie and destroy and the country would be like, "Yeah, let's govern ourselves like that."
Interesting that instead of Democrats working to answer questions about major voting irregularities, they have chosen to take the unprecedented steps of silencing those asking questions. Sure makes a thinking person wonder why.
IronicDid ya'll really think there would be no consequence to all the lying? That he could lie and lie and lie and destroy and the country would be like, "Yeah, let's govern ourselves like that."
I fall in to JD’s thoughts of investigate them all and see where the chips fall. That said, all investigations over the past 6-7 years have ended the same. Split down the party lines as to how the results are to be interpreted with neither side satisfied. With that, who would you believe the results from? Barr and Durham were perfect, until your side did not get what they wanted. You are no more guilty or innocent of that of that than the syskatines.
I think any allegations made against our government and our politicians should be investigated. Unfortunate those on the left think only Republicans should be investigated, while their side of the aisle are angelic.
Barr and Durham were perfect, until your side did not get what they wanted.
have you seen the results of durhams investigation?
been have you?
i’d consider what i’m liking
Would you believe any results that did not agree with you and your conpadres?
So, Facebook, Twitter, etc have always allowed lying. Started way before 2016. My question for you is to what extent they are ok with lying. Is it politics? Is it false information about regular people (which has had severe consequences such as many suicides)? When is it ok?
Also, not believing something is not the same as lying. People discount the number of deaths associated wit COVID (and despite popular belief, it is being severely under reported right now). They have that right, as much as I wish people would listen, but that is long gone. Is Facebook and Twitter at will to dictate belief?
It is a concerning slippery slope. I have never had a social media account beyond this site and plan to keep it that way. Those platforms can no longer claim that they support the exchange of ideas.
If the evidence backs up the conclusion sure. If the evidence does not back it up then no.
I want to believe you, I really do. I see this as an issue of absence of evidence will not satisfy. The charge will then be thatbthey covered it up too well.
I don't know where to draw the line, and you pose good questions. Regulating speech is hard, if not impossible.
At some point, you need some context. Lying about spinach cookies being the most delicious thing EVER is a white lie. Saying that someone is a pedophile and needs killed may not be a "lie" if the speaker believes it, but if it's untrue I would feel that's over the line. Any thinkin g person has a tough time on this slippery slope.
However, the Trump bullshit is easy. It's not a fuzzy line. He plainly lies about immensely important things -- deliberately -- and is trying to dismantle the democracy, and I'm fine with shutting that down.
That said, are you saying that lying with impunity against political rivals should be allowed? Or lying to subvert an otherwise clean election is okay?
Oh no.. noooooooooooo, nooooooo, now you're on the slippery slope. So you're for zero restrictions? Say whatever you want, incite all you want, lie and accuse your opponent of pedophilia an stoke stochastic terrorism? I wanna see you show me how to navigate that slippery slope.
I'm pretty comfortable with kicking off obvious liars, particularly right now, after seeing the congressional cop beat to death... with an american flag.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣However, the Trump bullshit is easy. It's not a fuzzy line. He plainly lies about immensely important things -- deliberately -- and is trying to dismantle the democracy, and I'm fine with shutting that down.
That said, are you saying that lying with impunity against political rivals should be allowed? Or lying to subvert an otherwise clean election is okay?
On your last paragraph, absolutely not. Do we only hold the “lying” to political rivals? I am fine with twitter, etc moderating, but there need to be consistent.
Um....what? Moderating is certainly fine. Do so consistently. If the reason is to prevent harm, I listed a big example of one way that they cause real harm by not moderating.
How do you consistently moderate though?
Let me ask you this. Based on the current standard, should Schiff have been banned claiming pee tapes and clear evidence, especially after he presented none? You want to be a multi billion dollar company, you have a system to moderate. The rules are stated with consequence clear. There will be some “moderation” from people complaining. So, having a team that manages those complaints would suffice, I would think. What they have done now, some can easily be justified, some is clearly reaching, but there is hypocrisy in the current form.
I dont' know what you're talking about, but if a dem consistently harassed someone with an out and out lie, and kept it up, yeah, that'd be over the line. The pee tape is a little different than "the election was a fraud" as it's a report from an intel report and may be true. It may not. I would not have objected if it was disproven, it was pointed out to Schiff, and he kept it up. Yeah, that'd be over the line.
You're also not including considerations of volume (how often does he lie?) and the consequences of the lie, i.e. is someone embarrassed, or do 5 people end up getting killed. Can reasonable minds differ, or is it obviously a lie? Too many variables for me to say, "This is the consistent test everyone should use." Btw, I haven't seen your proposed test, either.
You got a problem with Forbes doing this? The American business community is PISSED after last week. Unmantling the greatest democracy in history for one man's selfish ambitions is not going over well. It's bad business.
You really should avoid posting anything that has to do with any kind of principle, since yours seem will always change depending on which jersey the subject is wearing.I dont' know what you're talking about, but if a dem consistently harassed someone with an out and out lie, and kept it up, yeah, that'd be over the line. The pee tape is a little different than "the election was a fraud" as it's a report from an intel report and may be true. It may not. I would not have objected if it was disproven, it was pointed out to Schiff, and he kept it up. Yeah, that'd be over the line.
You're also not including considerations of volume (how often does he lie?) and the consequences of the lie, i.e. is someone embarrassed, or do 5 people end up getting killed. Can reasonable minds differ, or is it obviously a lie? Too many variables for me to say, "This is the consistent test everyone should use." Btw, I haven't seen your proposed test, either.
You got a problem with Forbes doing this? The American business community is PISSED after last week. Unmantling the greatest democracy in history for one man's selfish ambitions is not going over well. It's bad business.
The entire Trump presidency was torpedoed by a HUGE f-ing lie about Russia and you have the balls to show up here every day and screech about LIES. Pelosi and Schiff would be the first booted off of Twitter if lying was the standard you giant f-ing hypocrite.I dont' know what you're talking about, but if a dem consistently harassed someone with an out and out lie, and kept it up, yeah, that'd be over the line. The pee tape is a little different than "the election was a fraud" as it's a report from an intel report and may be true. It may not. I would not have objected if it was disproven, it was pointed out to Schiff, and he kept it up. Yeah, that'd be over the line.
You're also not including considerations of volume (how often does he lie?) and the consequences of the lie, i.e. is someone embarrassed, or do 5 people end up getting killed. Can reasonable minds differ, or is it obviously a lie? Too many variables for me to say, "This is the consistent test everyone should use." Btw, I haven't seen your proposed test, either.
You got a problem with Forbes doing this? The American business community is PISSED after last week. Unmantling the greatest democracy in history for one man's selfish ambitions is not going over well. It's bad business.
I want to believe you, I really do. I see this as an issue of absence of evidence will not satisfy. The charge will then be thatbthey covered it up too well.
All private businesses not allowing him to promote armed insurrection and sedition against our nation.
They choose not to do business with him or assist his insanity! No shirt, no shoes, no service!
Trump being banned can be justified, under the context that this is more than just him. Schiff lied, and no consequence. On that and your point, however, Trump was likely told that cheating at the ballot counts occurred. Since he believes it, is it lying? Same as Schiff.
As to volume of lies, how does that get quantified versus other liars? Right now, your only argument is “but, Trump.” I have no sympathy for him. I am looking at a broader context. The #walkaway ban looks suspiciously partisan from what I can see. Same with Flynn. Neither of those getting banned make sense to me.
Therein lies the problem. It seems obvious to me if 10% of the users generate 90% of the falsehoods, get rid of the 10%. You want every statement deconstructed and subjective intent to be analyzed. Iif you go 1 - 63 in court over it, and it's adjudicated, you still analyzed whether he truly believes it? How about e1 say, "well i really believed it" so now there's no moderating?
It's hard. Perpetual lying to foment sedition is across whatever line I can come up with.
Going back to Schiff. A multiple year investigation yielded nothing that he, Schiff, claimed. That investigation did not “exonerate” Trump, but nothing is was shown that Schiff claimed. That was dominating social media for several years. For that, should he be banned? If yes, why has he not been banned? The attacks against individuals leading to suicides should be stopped as well. I know of a few cases where the harassment was obviously and provably wrong, lies, and harassing, yet Facebook did nothing saying that it did not breach rules. Real harm caused, no care since it wasn’t political or play that game. That is wrong in every way.
Maybe so! I don't know the facts, I could see where yeah, schiff could go too far if he was repeatedly saying something that was plainly untrue.
So you just let this type of stuff go?
All I expect is equal treatment. We investigated a known false allegation in Russian collusion for 2 1/2 years with absolutely no evidence.
Maybe so! I don't know the facts, I could see where yeah, schiff could go too far if he was repeatedly saying something that was plainly untrue.
So you just let this type of stuff go?
Maybe so! I don't know the facts, I could see where yeah, schiff could go too far if he was repeatedly saying somet
That’s not what our intelligence services said and continue to say. Continued Russian interference and misinformation continues today including the hacking of government computers.
That’s not what our intelligence services said and continue to say. Continued Russian interference and misinformation continues today including the hacking of government computers.