Facebook Could Lift Trump's Suspension in January, Nick Clegg Says (medium.com) 198
Former President Donald Trump could be allowed back on Facebook once a suspension of his account expires in 2023, Nick Clegg of parent company Meta Platforms, said Thursday at an exclusive Semafor Exchange event in Washington, DC. From the report: As the company makes its decision, it will talk to experts, weigh the risk of real world harm and act proportionally, he said. It's the first time Clegg, who, as president of global affairs is charged with deciding whether to lift the limit, has publicly discussed his thinking. Trump was prohibited from posting on several online platforms after the January 2021 riots at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., with Facebook, sister app Instagram, Twitter and Google's YouTube citing his role in inciting the violence. "When you make a decision that affects the public realm, you need to act with great caution," Clegg told Semafor editor-at-large Steve Clemons. "You shouldn't throw your weight about."
Facebook Could Lift Trump's Suspension in January (Score:2)
And his truck will have plastic testicles hanging from the hitch receiver by February
Re: (Score:2)
Orange ones?
Re: (Score:2)
Gold, of course. That way it's not tacky!
Simple Reason (Score:2)
Zuckerberg has lost $84,000,000,000 in the last year..... Facebook is dying....
It's not dying (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Which probably would explain why they are wanting to get old Trump back. Love him or hate him the man can bring attention to your site. In the case of facebook any news is good news.
Re: (Score:2)
Why won't anyone think of MySpace?!?
He's still actively inciting violence (Score:5, Insightful)
It is absolutely against TOS to let Trump back on. The only reason to do this is money and politics (Facebook leans hard right, they're basically the Fox News of social media having been caught multiple times [politico.com] promoting right wing agendas).
Mark my words if they do this people will be hurt and killed.
Which is the point. The goal of terrorism is always the same: provoke violence which in turn provokes an over reaction from established Authorities and then use that over reaction to recruit followers and continue the cycle until you seize power.
When people tell you what they are, believe them. [snopes.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The same telepathic mind readers who have spent the last 6 years lying about everything Trump, from "putin puppet" to "drink bleach", still insist that unarmed protesters could take over the entire federal government to keep Trump as president.
It's a lie that doesn't need to make sense, when now it really just serves to identify for abuse the few remaining people on the left who aren't such intellectual cowards when it comes to the truth, and who won't goosestep along with whatever narrative the Democrats c
Re:Is this another one-way "standard"? (Score:4, Informative)
Brandt also admitted that he intentionally struck the victim after having a political argument with him.
I fail to see a Biden link. Meanwhile https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
Former President Donald Trump said Thursday the nation would face “problems ... the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen” if he is indicted over his handling of classified documents after leaving office
Re: (Score:2)
Biden's crazy red background speech
You mean the red, white, and blue background, of course, right? Because it was a tri-color background. But this is an excellent example of how the extreme right goes out of their way to take things out of context.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you're stupid enough to not know the difference. Which leads to the alternate explanation, that you care more for your feelings than you do the truth.
NIck Clegg (Score:2)
A former centre left UK deputy PM who had - up to a point - some integrity when in power and reigned in some of the dafter Tory policies.
Amazing what money will turn people into.
Dismissing Actual Harm. (Score:5, Interesting)
"When you make a decision that affects the public realm, you need to act with great caution," Clegg told Semafor editor-at-large Steve Clemons. "You shouldn't throw your weight about."
Anyone have an idea of the total amount of actual harm and death caused by the things Facebook fully put their weight behind?
Now that we're calling this a "riot", I'd love to hear the arguments that supported other well-documented riots while banning a sitting US President, and then talking about acting with "great caution".
Note that I asked for evidence with numbers, not races, religion, or political affiliation. No need for you to self-immolate with some kind of pointless flame war.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that we're calling this a "riot",
riot noun a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.
Or would you call them peaceful tourists? Let's ask congressman Andrew Clyde his thoughts. In fact I have a picture of Mr. Clyde during this thing we're not calling a riot. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4... [twimg.com]
He sure doesn't look very happy to see his fellow republican voters in that photo.
Re: (Score:2)
I was more referring to the fact that this incident was rationally downgraded from an "insurrection" to a "riot", which tends to justify the question I asked, since many other "riots" did not receive the same response from social media.
And it's pointless trying to have a rational discussion based on a screenshot from the one soaked in gasoline asking for a cigarette. I might as well go gnaw on 10-second sound bytes from a random blabbering idiot in media. Or stare at Rorschach tests for the answer.
You can call it a riot all you want (Score:3)
That said, as I mentioned in other posts the issue isn't the coup attempt, it's incitement to violence. Which Trump did and continues to do. See my post for your evidence of the most recent incitement, or any news cite or literally anything Trump himself said on Jan 6th for evidence.
As for deaths there's plenty of resources online that'll tell you how many died on Jan 6th.
And as always I notice you don't defend Trump (he's indefensible) yo
Silver bullet? (Score:2)
This is correlation, but they are getting causation wrong.
We left social media in droves because of the toxicity - it was SO STRESSFUL to engage with Facebook because it was all about politics and crazy debates about un-science.
We have realized that real life is a bit more interesting and that a good chunk of toxicity can be turned off by simply not logging in.
Also, for those
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more to do with the pttern that every generation thinks whatever their parents do is inherently uncool, so the kids all switched to TikTok instead (also through their own peer pressure).
The irony is that Facebook (like Google) is politically biassed to the left and rather than promote free speech, they implement cancel culture through their policies. Consequently they are a mechanism for social engineering kids to be left-aligned. Clearly bad, but TikTok is clearly a vehicle for the Chinese gov
Stop pretending, it isn't working (Score:2)
I don't care about Trump, but stop pretending this is about anything except dollars and politics. "Real world harm", what BS. This is about money, clicks, and signaling. It's not like we can't see right through it.
He hasn't changed.. (Score:2)
Those sweet, sweet... (Score:2, Insightful)
People Will Die, Again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Deputy Prime Minister (Score:2)
Former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Nick Clegg. Why leave that bit out of the article and all of these comments if the headline is "Former President ..."
Guess The Deal Fell Through (Score:2)
As has been widely reported, Truth Social has been struggling on every vector. Their subscriber numbers are a mere shadow of predictions. Though based on the Open Source Mastodon platform, they're having massive technical issues. They reportedly owe their hosting provider over $1 million. And, as of this writing, they still haven't c
Facebook could reinstate Donald Trump's Account (Score:2)
Facebook could reinstate Donald Trump's account immediately if they wanted to. Zuckerberg is responsible for allowing that (likely) child-molesting monster to attack American democracy and the electoral process and to steal and rob and cheat and lie and incite violence. But will Zuckerberg ever act like a human being with a sense of morality and duty to others? Probably not, He's a rich jackass like DJT who has also never had to face real, physical consequences for the terrible decisions he's made and very
Obvious prediction (Score:2)
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Funny)
Think of it this way. Social media is a bakery and Trump is a gay wedding cake.
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Informative)
In general, social media sites have been blocking people for repeatedly posting misinformation. During his presidency, Trump got a pass on this: he was able to lie without being blocked. After he lost the election, though, and after the Jan 6 riot, apparently this immunity went away.
Some links: Wikipedia overview [wikipedia.org]
Also, various other sources: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/16... [cnn.com]
https://www.who.com.au/7-donal... [who.com.au]
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/a... [buzzfeednews.com]
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-d... [yahoo.com]
And, of course, there's the WP's exhaustive database of all Donald Trump's Lies [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Interesting)
Facebook will let him back on the second they know they can make more money by having him there than by not having him there. So will Twitter and the rest. Basically, this will boil down to whether or not Trump announces another run. If he does and the country starts to tear itself apart, Twitter, Facebook, and the whole gang will happily feast upon the soon-to-be corpse of democracy so long as it makes those dollars pour in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The left wants him front and center so he can drive people away from the GOP.
Doesn't seem to be working, because the GOP remains solidly behind Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
You know good and well "the left" will not allow him back on Twitter, Facebook or any other social media site.
Facebook, one of the largest corporations in the world which has given more money to Republicans than Democrats is somehow "the left"? That can only be true if "the left" is now pretty much anyone more than very slightly to the left of slashdot's favorite (at least you'd think given how often we refer to him) Austrian. That says more about you than it does about left/right politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook, one of the largest corporations in the world which has given more money to Republicans than Democrats is somehow "the left"?
Given more money is a rather dumb way of measuring which way they lean with my-lawn filters.
Facebook, is part of the Donor Class. Given more money entirely depends on who is in power at the time, and how much they need to pay and get their way as part of the Untouchable class of businesses.
And they've been paying for a long damn time now. Across multiple administrations. If Libertarians somehow captured the Presidency and Congress for the next decade or two, then you'd suddenly see just how much Faceboo
Re: (Score:2)
it sounds like turkey you agree with me or think that despite having no apparent political leanings being money they are "left" because they did something you don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
it sounds like turkey you agree with me or think that despite having no apparent political leanings being money they are "left" because they did something you don't like.
Yes perhaps they are (which I'll elaborate), but my point still stands regarding more money metrics.
It's more what we don't hear about on social media or the MSM, that makes the bias far more obvious. For all citizens. You'd have more freedom screaming the N-word in the middle of an NAACP convention than you would whispering "Hunter Biden laptop" on social media. Meanwhile, Trump's neighbors dog lifting his left leg to take a piss, turns into Liberal dog turns on Trump headline news for some idiotic rea
Re: (Score:2)
You know good and well "the left" will not allow him back on Twitter, Facebook or any other social media site.
They don't want him to have ANY "voice" other than what they media says he says.
Good. This sack of shit has had a voice louder than almost everyone else in the world for his entire useless life because his dad was rich. If he'd been born into an average family where you have to work for a living he'd have been dead in a gutter decades ago and no one would have noticed or cared.
He's had his go, and more; time's up.
Re:Incited? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Incited? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incited? (Score:4, Informative)
Guess we give Hillary a pass for saying for over 4 years that her election was stolen
Except that she didn't incite an armed insurrection, and neither did Al Gore in 2000, despite strong opinions (backed up by evidence) that both elections were tampered with in improper ways.
then even though multiple investigations took place that determined it had not.
Your source lists a whole lot of stated opinions from lawmakers about the validity of recent elections, but not a single investigation.
There was, however, that one [wikipedia.org] that found credible evidence that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".
So for at least the 2016 election, some of those objections were based on real world evidence.
Of which you've still provided none.
Re: Incited? (Score:2)
In all - Trump should get a permanent gag order considering his wonky claims that even seems to include bleach against covid.
Re: Incited? (Score:4, Informative)
However, the absolute dogmatic insistence that none was needed, for every court to unanimously deny an actual hearing, and the absolute unanimity of the system of checks and balances to refuse to look into it, is why I personally believe there is more there than we are told.
Judges appointed by every one of our recent presidents including Trump in around a dozen states found there was no meaningful basis to any of these claims. Multiple state audits (many done by Republicans) have found no evidence of meaningful fraud. The Supreme Court, stacked with Trump appointees, wouldnt even hear cases pertaining to this because there was so little merit to the claims and you're claiming this is somehow a reason to suspect fowl play?
I mean, what the fuck is more likely, some grand conspiracy of the judiciary and the states effecting appointees even put in place by Trump or that Trump is full of shit?
I'll answer that since your ability to reason seems suspect and tell you that it is most assuredly the later scenario.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, what the fuck is more likely, some grand conspiracy of the judiciary and the states effecting appointees even put in place by Trump or that Trump is full of shit?
It's also a grand conspiracy among the voting public to put Trump out of office. Can't be having with that!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, the voters are in on it too! Now it all makes sense! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the voters are in on it too! Now it all makes sense! ;)
See how deep the conspiracy goes? It goes all the way down. ALL the way down.
Re: Incited? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the judiciary, every single judge that handles a case regarding the election has to weigh the fact that any decision that hands Trump a victory, will cause them immense backlash. They are fallible against a ruthless conniving enemy that will go so far as to brand someone as a gang-rapist just to keep them off the bench.
You're telling me that a dozen judges in a dozen states along with the Trump packed Supreme Court lied and ruled there was no meaningful fraud in the 2020 presidential election because they were worried about people being upset despite the Supreme Court recently rolling back abortion which upset a shit ton of people. Give me a fucking break, you'll make up anything to justify your collapsing world view.
The most audited election in history [Re: Incited? (Score:2)
SCOTUS told twenty five state attorney generals that they didn't have standing to object how another state conducts their election,
That was the correct ruling. The constitution does not give one state the standing to object to how another state conducts their elections.
Now, having talked about one of the lawsuits that Trump either lost or got thrown out of court, what about the other fifty-five?
not that there wasn't evidence of fraud in the election.
Out of the fifty-six lawsuits, that one didn't rule about evidence of fraud. But many of the others did.
The judges didn't lie. They used every legal excuse not to handle this nuclear hot potato based on procedural grounds.
What, that they ruled that states don't have the standing to tell other states how to run their elections, when in fact states don't have th
Re: Incited? (Score:5, Informative)
All the +5 insightful shills claiming "The 2016 election was stolen by Russians for Trump using ads on Facebook and Twitter" are back
Ads on Facebook and Twitter were a major mode of attack by the Russian government. There was an in-depth investigation, you may have heard of it [wikipedia.org].
to say "nothing to see here" when it comes to questioning an election where a candidate gets more votes than anyone in history, while carrying fewer counties than previous elections, and while carrying only one of the belwether counties.
Nobody is saying "nothing to see here". People are saying, "show us the evidence". And 50+ court cases [reuters.com] (including many with Trump appointees adjudicating) have collectively called Bullshit.
find some new way to "bus people in" and cheat?
Busing people in is a valid response to red states shutting down voting locations in liberal-leaning neighborhoods. If you have evidence of actual cheating, that's a crime. You [foxnews.com] should [foxnews.com] definitely [msn.com] prosecute [nbcnews.com] it [politicususa.com].
Re: Incited? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump: There are NO classified documents at my office
FBI posts photos of all the classified documents they found
Trump: Look at the mess the FBI made with my classified documents!
There is a *lot* more to 2000 than hanging chads (Score:5, Informative)
As for Trump lying, we know that for a fact. Go watch the Jan 6th hearings. We have a mountain of testimony from his own people who told him he legitimately lost the election and warned him of the legal consequences of lying about it. These were lawyers and they knew what they were talking about. They're spilling the beans but if you're trapped in a bubble it's easy enough to miss.
You will note that not once ounce of evidence has made it to a court despite 2 years of election lies.
Trump absolutely knew he was lying about the 2020 election being rigged. He does not believe it for an instance. Or if he does he's severely mentally ill. I guess we could entertain that prospect. That he's incapable of processing information and completely delusional.
This is the guy you gave the nuclear launch codes too, and who you want to give them back to. Not that you'll admit it.
Something I've noticed is no one ever defends Trump anymore. They just go on the attack against people calling Trump out. Trump is no longer defensible but his cult just can't quit him. The point being Trump supporters know they're wrong, but as the saying goes, "I substitute your reality with my own!".
So what you do instead of defending Trump's election lies is say "I don't believe there was no fuckery" and claim you just want a "system of checks and balances" when in fact there were multiple hearings and multiple checks and balances and you know this because you followed it all religiously. You either don't believe anything you said or you, like Trump, have lost your grasp on reality. I think it's the former, you're too coherent to be mentally ill.
That's all great fun until real reality comes knocking and you don't have food or drinking water.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump absolutely knew he was lying about the 2020 election being rigged.
One could argue the election was rigged, given hour Trump actually started lying about it before it even started. He played the long game here, delegitimising an election before it even occurred. Remember the battle against postal voting?
Re:There is a *lot* more to 2000 than hanging chad (Score:4, Insightful)
2000 was a tie. A statistical tie. The difference in votes was extremely deep inside the margin of counting error, even counting errors of digital ballot counters. In a normal country this would have been reason enough to have a runoff election. But we have a messed up system. BOTH SIDES were picking and choosing which counties should have recounts and which should not. The supreme court screwed the pooch by making a decision instead of throwing it back to the state and saying "get your act together!" This was a low point of both Republicans and Democrats, and very embarassing (at least to centrists).
Gore [Re:There is a *lot* more to 2000 than ...] (Score:2)
and you can google it if you care to find out. Short answer is that Gore could have won if he fought it but thought it wasn't worth the damage to the country.
No, sorry. He did fight it. Gore continued to fight for the recount for literally as long as it was possible to do so.
How could he have won? There is no place left to appeal to once the Supreme Court has ruled. What do you think he had left to do?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think he had left to do?
Some folks have been known to start a violent fascist insurrection at the Capitol building, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Re: Incited? (Score:5, Informative)
None.
Zero.
Zip.
All you have are hurt feelings and a religious hardon for an obese criminal that wears heavy makeup.
Is it possible the election was stolen? Of course. But if you want me to believe that, you need to bring proof... and in the year since, there has been no proof. If somebody had it, they didn't show it.
What has been shown is a bunch of grifters fleecing morons for billions of dollars, and the morons yelling "thank you sir, may I have another!"
Re: Incited? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe Joe Biden won fair and square.
No maybe about it he did.
But, there was legitimately so much fuckery going on,
Only from the Republican party, who were desperate to commit election fraud and overturn a completely legitimate result, with the aid of useful idiots like you.
Everything was checked twice.
Everything was checked more than twice. Even the Republican's own cyber ninjas found that the Arizona result for Biden was correct.
The only way for Biden to not have won was fraud on such an unprecedented scale that it would have had to have been thousands of times worse than has ever been demonstrated in any presidential election in the US ever, in several states simultaneously, that somehow missed by all of the audits including ones performed and funded privately by the party with a strong vested interest in overturning the results.
There is not a shred of evidence of fraud within even 0.1% of that required to swing the election. None. Not a jot. Even Trump's own lawyer admitted in court that he wasn't even filing a lawsuit alleging fraud.
What the fuck more do you want? Even the republicans found Biden won when they looked REALLY hard and Trump's own people could not actually bring themselves to claim under in court that they were even looking for fraud.
He was fucking defense contractors, health care providers, long term diplomats, the intelligence community, the welfare community, energy companies, and reshaping America.
Yeah so in other words, he was a shit president who the majority of the country hated but somehow in the minds of utter morons that's not enough to remove him because of the "system". Hillary! Benghazi! Pizza! Q!
You're not just a fuckwit for pushing this bullshit, you are actively trying to tear down democracy,
Re: Incited? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, there was with the several states violating their own constitutions about mail-in voting, the stopped counts all happening at exactly the same time. Never mind Biden winning 1 of the 20 bellewether counties and still winning the presidency(previous low was 13). Hell Biden was the first person since Kennedy to win while losing both Ohio and Florida. Both of those facts make Biden's election unusual at the very least.
Randall Munroe covered that [Re: Incited?] (Score:2)
Hell Biden was the first person since Kennedy to win while losing both Ohio and Florida.
Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1122/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In 2000 we all learned what a pregnant vs hanging chad was, and there were cameras focused on the recount the world over. Nothing was done in secret. Everything was checked twice. We didnt get that in 2020. Maybe Joe Biden won fair and square. But, there was legitimately so much fuckery going on, that you cannot really know, and I dont have faith in the official outcome. I saw the videos, I watched the presentation of evidence, and I was convinced more investigation in public was warranted. Easily.
And it was done.
For all the incriminating videos floating around they all have innocuous explanations when investigated [usatoday.com].
It's easy to come up with stuff that looks incriminating. The question if those things are investigated and a legitimate explanation found are you willing to admit it?
Re: (Score:3)
He lied about the election, constantly every day after the election..
Proof he lied?
The Washington Post kept a running tally. Somebody posted the link in another thread; I'll copy it here [yahoo.com]
In 2000 we all learned what a pregnant vs hanging chad was, and there were cameras focused on the recount the world over. Nothing was done in secret. Everything was checked twice. We didnt get that in 2020.
We sure did! The 2020 election was scrutinized and audited and recounted and rerecounted. If you didn't notice that, it's only because you were being deliberately blind to it.
Here's a summary by a conservative group that looked at all the claims that the election was stolen, and found none of them were supported by evidence:
https://lostnotstolen.org//wp-... [lostnotstolen.org]
Maybe Joe Biden won fair and square. But, there was legitimately so much fuckery going on,
Repeat: there were claims of "fuckery" going on,
Re: Incited? (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. I don't buy the claims that the election was stolen, but neither do I buy the claims that Biden got 81m votes.
So you think it was stolen then. Yet not a single court or judge (appointed by Trump no less or a card carrying Federalist Society member) has found the slightest bit of evidence. I guess the stolen election info must be on Hunter's laptop.
That trick never works (Score:2)
First visible comment in the discussion. Can't you at least change the Subject? (I'm guessing it was an AC troll, but I don't care enough to look before leaping to reply.)
But I did see your Funny comments below and enjoyed them. I wish humor were a better tool against stupidity, notwithstanding My General Theory of Relatively Funny Stuff.
Re: Incited? (Score:5, Funny)
You're using the Joe Rogan line of speaking.
I'm not saying Glenn Beck raped and murdered a woman in 1990. I'm just asking questions here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hilary convinced many of her supporters that her election results were not fair.
Hillary conceded the day after the election with the words "We must accept this result." [slashdot.org] and asking her supporters "to give Donald Trump 'an open mind and the chance to lead'. [time.com]”
Many Gore supporters also believed that the election results were not fair.
Gore conceded the election the day after the court ruled against him [politico.com].
Joe Rogan reasoning [Re: Incited?] (Score:5, Informative)
No, I don't know. "I don't know" is a valid position to take. I find both outcomes equally exceptional, but likewise I find both outcomes possible.
"I don't know" is not a valid position to take when there are piles of evidence that there was no fraud, and no evidence that there was.
You're using the Joe Rogan line of speaking. I'm not saying Glenn Beck raped and murdered a woman in 1990. I'm just asking questions here.
So...binary thinking and argumentative fallacies are all you can bring here?
He was pointing out that this is simply a variation on the argumentation technique of saying something without shred of evidence and then saying "I'm just asking questions" (implying that both possibilities are equally likely).
If somebody is claiming fraud, it is their burden to adduce evidence. Claiming fraud with no evidence whatsoever and saying "no, you prove that there wasn't fraud" is a similar way of arguing.
Re: Incited? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't know" is a valid position to take.
No it's not. You have no evidence of fraud (or it would be in the courts right now) meanwhile you have a complete rejection of fraud by the judiciary all the way to the Trump stacked supreme court and multiple Republican run audits that have failed to produce any evidence of meaningful fraud.
You literally have no reason to believe that there was meaningful fraud in the last election aside from hearsay, conjecture and a whole lot of horrible wishful thinking.
Re: Incited? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's faith based politics. Believing in something because your gut tells you to despite any evidence. It seems to go beyond faith even, as people keep claiming that they have incontrovertible proof that the election was fraudulent, and they give a date when they will disclose that evidence, and yet it never happens.
At this point, I think most of the Trump supporters KNOW that he officially lost and instead they're just sticking with the lie because they don't want democracy if it doesn't go their way or if people with opposing views are allowed to vote. Screw the big experiment with democracy, just put their guy in charge and pretend it was legal.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is it will never be enough for you people. This has been the most audited election in our country's history and you keep asking for more. Every court case that is refused or ruled against you, you want more. Every audit you perform that fails to provide the evidence you want, you want more. Oh, but we have all this "evidence" still! "They boarded up the windows to a vote counting room that was fully staffed with Republican observers! FRRRAAAUUUDDD". Utter nonsense.
There's is no amount of research
Re: (Score:2)
No evidence for the election being stolen? Yes, there is NO evidence that has been accepted by a judge, including right wing judges, including Trump appointed judges. There is no evidence that holds up. "A friend of a friend said..." is not evidence. A youtube video is not evidence. Sidney Powell talking in a serious face is not evidence. We had audits galore, Arizona even had a circus of audits, and they did not uncover anything that pointed to a mass cover up or a mass rigging of votes, or a stolen
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about "stolen", but money and actions of Zuckerburg foundation and Facebook towards 2020 election influence
Turns out that all of these are protected free speech, according to the Supreme court.
As was the massive amounts of money spent by the right-wing megadonors. I don't like this either, but neither one have anyhing to do with "stolen".
was an order of magnitude greater than any money and efforts spent by Russia on 2016 influence.
Possibly. But nevertheless, the Russians did illegally try to influence the 2016 election. (Read the Muller report.) This was part of their overall campaign to disrupt American in any way possible, of which the election was only a small part. A lot of their covert work was jus
Re: Incited? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find both outcomes equally exceptional, but likewise I find both outcomes possible.
Only one of the outcomes has any evidence, and it's not through lack of searching for any.
TLDR; You don't want to believe the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Link [Re: Incited?] (Score:5, Informative)
Horseshit. No investigations in full view of the public were conducted. None.
The controversial elections were audited, recounted by hand, and reaudited, all in full glare of publicity. And done so by Republicans. You are saying "I didn't see the investigations because I refuse to look".
I gave a link, but of course you didn't look at it. Here it is again: https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
Re: Incited? (Score:2)
Re: Incited? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you seen the polls that even now show how much Trump is hated? Every liberal hated trump, a lot in the middle hated trump, and even some on the right hated trump.
There are often elections where people are not voting for someone as much as they are voting against someone. 2016 was the same way, there was a lot more voting against Hillary than they were for trump.
In 2020, there were a ton of people voting against Trump. Biden wasn't an exciting candidate; he was too centrist for the far left and not centrist enough for the middle.
But there was (and still is) so much hatred towards Trump that yes, 81m people could and did vote for Biden, just to get Trump out of there.
The Trumpists can't believe this because of their love for Trump (including Trump himself), so to them 81m people voting for Biden of course doesn't make sense since Trump is awesome... But to the rest of the world, his downfall was totally obvious and it showed that the general American electorate came to their senses and ousted a really bad president...
Re: Incited? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, Trump is hated very much, just check the raw polling data: https://www.documentcloud.org/... [documentcloud.org]
Over 50% consistently disapprove of him, and over 40% always fall into the "strongly disapprove" category. It also shows that his "very negative" personal feelings are far above all previous presidents. 50% disapproved of him and his policies. He has the highest uncomfortable ratings for 2024 and low enthusiastic ratings...
There's a lot of data in there to demonstrate that he is truly hated by the majority of Americans. With that kind of data, it shouldn't be hard to understand how he lost the election and how he'll lose the next election too if he runs...
Trump running in 2024? Expect another term for Biden.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump was and IS hated, I know, but not nearly so much as folks around here seem to believe; he still garnered over 70 million votes, after all.
You missed the GP's point. That doesn't mean 70million voters liked Trump. That means 70million voters hated Biden.
Maybe it was the pandemic and general uncertainty that tipped the scales against Trump, who knows.
Maybe it was that people voted a wild card in 2016 and realised how much of a mistake it was to let a psychotic nutjob run the country. Maybe they got sick of being a global embarrassment?
I frankly like Trump's last insult. "Sleepy Joe Biden". Joe should have run with it: "Vote me for sleep. Because we're all so fucking tired of the past 4 years' endless bullshit and doing nothing is literally
Re: (Score:2)
There has been far more harm caused to the US under Biden by literally ANY objective metric you might care to name.
If there was "far more harm," then it should be easy for you to provide plenty of cites to back that up. "Far more" means we're not quibbling about details, right? So, let's see it. And Fox propaganda doesn't count.
Though I can argue one metric: since Biden has become president, I no longer wake up each morning wondering, "Wtf did that orange ass clown do this morning?"
Re: Incited? (Score:5, Informative)
Why does 81m votes seem exceptional? The largest population in the US so far, and an election that has stirred up more people than ever to get out and vote instead of just twiddling thumbs. Of course it's a record amount of votes, and it was a record on both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
True, I think Trump believes this. Trump has lived in a fantasy world his entire life. He's a sheltered rich baby, the king of the elitists. Everyone around him, at least since he left school, has been telling him how great he is. He's surrounded by yes men. Even as president he kept going to rallies to keep having people cheer at him (possibly to get away from all his advisors who kept saying "you can't do that").
Also, forget the classified docs. The original thing they were investigating were the unc
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Stop the steal!", chant the Proud Boys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Incited? (Score:5, Informative)
Some of the more fascist-adjacent lowlights:
All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they're doing. And stolen by the fake news media. That's what they've done and what they're doing. We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved.
Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with: We will stop the steal.
And by the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? Does anybody believe that? He had 80 million computer votes. It's a disgrace. There's never been anything like that. You could take third-world countries. Just take a look. Take third-world countries. Their elections are more honest than what we've been going through in this country. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace.
Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.
And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight.
Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.
But it almost seems that they're all going out of their way to hurt all of us and to hurt our country. To hurt our country.
You will have an illegitimate president. That's what you'll have. And we can't let that happen.
They also want to indoctrinate your children in school by teaching them things that aren't so. They want to indoctrinate your children. It's all part of the comprehensive assault on our democracy, and the American people are finally standing up and saying no.
The radical left knows exactly what they're doing. They're ruthless and it's time that somebody did something about it. And Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now. I'm not hearing good stories.
Make no mistake, this election was stolen from you, from me and from the country.
Well, I say, yes it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can't vote on fraud.
And fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules.
We won in a landslide. This was a landslide. They said it's not American to challenge the election. This the most corrupt election in the history, maybe of the world.
I
f we allow this group of people to illegally take over our country because it's illegal when the votes are illegal when the way they got there is illegal when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information.
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
Re: (Score:2)
And by the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes?
Yes.
Does anybody believe that?
Yes.
Election turnout was at an all time high, but not the jump compared to last election was not unprecedented. And the US population is at an all time high. That means the number of votes cast will be at an all time high. It's simple maths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
To me, the insistence that Biden could not have gotten so many votes because they don't know anyone who likes him is very similar to the insistence that Hillary should win easily because they don't know anyone how hates her. People are stuck in bubbles, and that leaves them not really understanding how people with different political views really feel.
Re: (Score:2)
parent needs to up his/her meds.
yeah, election was stolen. right.
troll or fool, either way, we're so tired of your shit. you lost. and you will continue to lose, when you stay that detached from reality.
your choice. here in reality, we rely on evidence. you got any to support your view? thought so.
"bye bye!"
(lol)
Re: (Score:3)
The parent is just repeating lines told by others, these are the opposite of the parent's view. Parent should have used quotation marks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, when you take a bunch of angry white racist crackers and say "Come on, let's march on the capital...", you just gotta know where it is going to end up...
Re:Incited? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
you just gotta know where it is going to end up.
Probaby at the bar half way down on Pennsylvania avenue?
Re: (Score:2)
What, precisely, did he do to incite the riot? Can anyone link such a video?
You're really hankering after fascism, aren't you? What is it about fascism that you find so attractive?
Blessed be the fruit.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Incited? (Score:2)
Stop reading dark web sites for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
This election has been run through the courts in about a dozen states with some cases even overseen by Trump appointees. The Trump stacked supreme court refused to see cases on the subject because there was no proper evidence. Multiple Republican run audits have failed to produce any evidence of meaningful fraud.
You're just making shit up to justify what has been an unjustifiable position for quite some time now. All you have is fictions like there are "massive anomalies" in the vote and "mountains of evide
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you trust the courts? That's quaint and hilarious. I can't think of a single reason why the courts would be held suspect, can you?
I'll believe my own eyes, thanks. The entire system is corrupt from top to bottom, and I've seen it first hand.
Re: (Score:2)
May I suggest Truth Social, Telegram or Parler? Even Fox News comments you might find more agreeable.
As far as the story goes, FB can choose whatever it wants. It's their platform. As long as I'm not required to access it.
Re: (Score:2)