The terms of service agreement doesn't apply to him. Just ask him. Simply more red meat with zero substance for his base. Now let's watch all of those who claimed they stand for the rights of business to change their views.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Fact check: Untethered to reality, Trump lies over and over about the 2020 election at CPAC
He’s still repeating his favorite old lies, those eternal chestnuts about the size of the trade deficit with China and the legitimacy of the Russia investigation and how many immigrants show up for their court hearings.
But former President Donald Trump’s current dishonesty is overwhelmingly focused on a single subject: the 2020 election he lost eight months ago but won’t stop lying that he won.
In a rambling Sunday address to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas, Trump returned again and again to election-related lies – some of them detailed and wrong, most of them vague and wrong.
What can you even say about claims so disconnected from reality? Here’s a brief fact check of eight of them.
Trump: “And we were doing so well until the rigged election happened to come along. We were doing really well.”
The election was not rigged. Trump lost fair and square.
Trump: “Unfortunately, this was an election where the person that counts the votes was far more important than the candidate, no matter how many votes that candidate got – and we got record numbers of votes.”
Joe Biden was the candidate who earned a record number of votes: more than 81 million. Trump earned more than 74 million votes – a record for a sitting president, but that’s not what Trump said here.
Trump: “You know, the New York Times asked me a question: ‘What happened in 2020 – that was different from 2016.’ I said, ‘Well I’ll tell you: we did much better in 2020 and we got 12 million more votes. We won by a much bigger margin.”
Trump lost. Biden beat him by 74 votes in the Electoral College, 306 to 232, and by more than 7 million votes in the national popular vote.
Trump did receive about 11.2 million more votes than he did in 2016 – side note: that doesn’t round to “12 million” – but Biden received about 15.4 million more votes than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton got in 2016.
Trump: “Every time the media references the election hoax. they say the fraud is: ‘Unproven! And while there is no evidence…’ No evidence? No evidence? There’s so much evidence.”
There was no election hoax. And while there were some scattered cases of fraud, including some by Trump supporters, there is indeed no evidence of widespread fraud or outcome-altering fraud – as Republican elections officials in various states, Trump-appointed former Attorney General William Barr, and numerous others have pointed out.
Trump: “…the Justice Department, they failed to call out a late-night ballot stuffing that took place in Georgia, remember that? Where they made up a story of a water main break in order to get people and security to leave the premises. And then they went into a rampage of stuffing, essentially, the ballots.”
There was no ballot “stuffing” at an elections facility in Georgia. While initial reports of a burst pipe or broken water main at State Farm Arena did turn out to be inaccurate – the reality was that a urinal had overflowed – Trump’s claim that local elections workers proceeded to stuff the ballot box has been debunked by the office of Georgia’s Republican elections chief, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
Trump: “They deleted, Georgia, over 100,000 votes.”
Didn’t happen. Rather, Raffensperger announced in June that more than 100,000 names would be deleted from Georgia’s voter registration rolls to keep the state’s voter files “up to date,” saying “there is no legitimate reason to keep ineligible voters on the rolls.” That is not even close to the same thing as deleting actual votes.
Trump: “The drop boxes were off very late. ‘Where are they? Where are they? What happened?’ They’re supposed to be – they’re not. I could tell you what happened. Sometimes late by days in showing up to the vote-counting areas.”
There is no evidence that ballot drop boxes were delivered improperly late. There is no evidence for Trump’s suggestion that something nefarious happened with ballot drop boxes.
Trump: “Detroit was so corrupt.”
There is no evidence that Detroit was “corrupt” in the 2020 election. In fact, a Republican-led investigation debunked some of Trump allies’ false claims about what happened in Detroit, such as their inaccurate assertion that large numbers of ballots were cast in the names of deceased Detroit residents.
Just remember as you attempt to blast Biden, this is what your party has turned into and why Biden is our president. Trump is still your leader. And as long as you remain silent about the lies he spreads and the things he says, you will never get your party back.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
American Conservative Union: YouTube Canceled CPAC Live Stream
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Monday, 12 July 2021
The American Conservative Union says YouTube effectively canceled its ability to live stream former President Donald Trump's Sunday speech or any of the rest of the organization's "America UnCanceled" Conservative Political Action Conference over the weekend because it had posted a video Friday showing Trump announcing his class-action lawsuit against Big Tech.
“It is clear that YouTube censored CPAC because we stood with former President Donald Trump on his lawsuit against Big Tech,” ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp said in a statement.
"This is yet another example of Big Tech censoring content with which they disagree in order to promote the political positions they favor.”
The ACU says it learned its account was frozen for seven days after it aired the Trump announcement detailing the lawsuits he filed against Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google, which is YouTube's parent company, as well as the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter, reports The Washington Times.
According to the ACU, YouTube informed it in a note that it removed the July 9 episode of its America UnCanceled program for "medical misinformation" and had issued the week-long ban.
In its statement, ACU said that it believes "YouTube was offended by sound medical research conducted by the Smith Center for Infectious Diseases & Urban Health and Saint Barnabas Medical Center. Former President Donald Trump referenced the study in the video that YouTube removed, saying, 'doctors and medical groups have been barred from these platforms for posting about therapeutics such as hydroxychloroquine … now, most recent studies say (the drug is) effective in combating the virus.'"
By blocking the CPAC live stream, "clearly, Google’s political biases heavily influence YouTube’s definitions of 'misinformation' and that the political beliefs of Google executives take priority over the free speech rights of Google users," the ACU concluded in its statement.
Last week, the organization announced it is joining with several other organizations in the class-action lawsuit.
“It is my honor to stand alongside President Trump and the brave citizens from across the country who had the courage to stand up to Big Tech, even though they have little power, except for their rights enshrined in the Constitution, including the First Amendment, which is the birthright of every American,” said Schlapp. "This lawsuit will break the stranglehold Big Tech has over our freedom to speak.”
The organization also says Google removed videos of Trump's speech from the CPAC event held in February.
"Prior to the videos of President Donald Trump’s CPAC 2021 speech being removed by Google, they had received 31 million views on Google’s YouTube platform," the ACU said. "YouTube representatives told ACU that the speech was removed because ACU did not offer context on what YouTube determined to be 'election disinformation.'"
I think understanding things is very important and getting answers is important where I see a mistake is we can't allow it to be a distraction from the work that needs to be done to improve lives.
I see people struggling while we debate and lose focus on their struggles. I see climate issues that are on the verge of consuming us and I see us engaged in a battle at the expense of these issues because we are being distracted away from what at the end of the day has so harmed our country and people.
I have also learned to that when it comes to the major issues facing our country regardless of political identity we agree far more then we don't. I have a friend who we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum on choice of leadership. But where we agree is on the absolute need to address political corruption which in reality tells me that if we could get a handle on just that issue we could fix everything else in short order.
But when it comes to healthcare we agree. When it comes to personal freedom, jobs, environment and on and on we agree. I avoid the old pit falls and I encourage him to do the same. One of the greatest threats to progress is to fight over things we will never agree on mostly abortion and guns. They are a waste of time. Sure at some point we do need to have a very serious talk about both issues but what they have repeatedly done is got us all fighting with each other and what ends up happening is we never make progress on the issues we do agree on and what happens we get nothing done. What I have learned from this is we can talk again our friendship is stronger then it has ever been and we have a newfound respect for each other. Stop spending so much time in losing fights where neither of us truly win and start working toegther to change the issues and things we agree on.
I personally believe that politicians will always pull out the old abortion/gun fight whenever they want to distract us away from what they are up to, or away from any issue where the will of the people points in a direction that is counter to the political owners interests.
If you notice we can't get real change when it comes to healthcare but we can get the president to take our money and give it away to the insurance company so we can afford insurance and it goes on and on. We get band aides and we are bleeding to death. But if we stay focus demand change on the issues we agree on and resist fighting over what we don't agree on we can come together and that is IMO what we must do.
BTTB
AKA Upbeat Dawg
Can't believe I am in a group that is comprised of the best NOT just fans but people on the planet.
attacks on 1st amendment rights should never be applauded.
No one is attacking donny’s right to blather on about his MASSIVE defeat at the hands of Biden. He can still lie his fat arse off all he wants. He can stand on the top of his gaudy trump tower and scream until his bloated orange face turns red. No one will stop him. It’s his right. Facebook owes him nothing. It doesn’t have to give him a platform to spread his garbage. This is their right as a private business. No one is stopping donny from his right to speak freely. He can hold rallies. Scream into a mirror. Tell Ivanka that he’s still president. Cry it into a bucket of KFC. OR YELL IT INTO A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW AT MCDONALDS!! He has options. He has free speech. How hard is this to understand?
They think it's a violation of his right to free speech to be booted from big social media because he has howled like a neutered dog since it happened.
I have a buddy that’s in Zuck’s jail right now. This is like the 3rd time in just a couple of months he’s been suspended. He knows why it happened. He realizes his calling some knuckledragger out for spreading antivax nonsense got him another 30 FB free vacation. He also knows he’s heading for a longer ban if he doesn’t better control himself. It’s fairly easy to understand. You get the boot for breaking their rules. Donny can’t help himself and stop lying. Zuck gave him the boot. What will be will be.
attacks on 1st amendment rights should never be applauded.
Boo Hoo You can’t run into public building and scream “FIRE!!!” You’ll be arrested for inciting a panic. This is more about spreading false information than our constitutional rights. Get a grip on your trump bromance and lower your trump flag to half staff.
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives. – Jackie Robinson
attacks on 1st amendment rights should never be applauded.
No one is attacking donny’s right to blather on about his MASSIVE defeat at the hands of Biden. He can still lie his fat arse off all he wants. He can stand on the top of his gaudy trump tower and scream until his bloated orange face turns red. No one will stop him. It’s his right. Facebook owes him nothing. It doesn’t have to give him a platform to spread his garbage. This is their right as a private business. No one is stopping donny from his right to speak freely. He can hold rallies. Scream into a mirror. Tell Ivanka that he’s still president. Cry it into a bucket of KFC. OR YELL IT INTO A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW AT MCDONALDS!! He has options. He has free speech. How hard is this to understand?
I don't know that media outlets can claim being a private business. If so, it's pretty dangerous if they decide what is printed or said. The same goes for political affiliations.
I think all of that will come to a head in time.
Question...do you really want that?
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Again Boo Hoo. You can’t be allowed to continually spread lies and false information about our election outcomes. He got his butt handed to him by Biden and Donny can’t let it go. Boo Hoo
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives. – Jackie Robinson
I don't know that media outlets can claim being a private business. If so, it's pretty dangerous if they decide what is printed or said. The same goes for political affiliations.
I think all of that will come to a head in time.
Question...do you really want that?
If that was what they were doing, no. But it isn't.
When you join any social media site, you agree on terms of service. Even Dawgtalkers has rules, that if you break, you get suspended for. So should PPE have no rules and everyone can just say or post anything they want to?
Their are limitations to free speech. And when you say things to incite violence along with other guidelines, that earns you a suspension. The more often and egregious that violation, the longer that suspension.
Agreeing to those terms of service guidelines when you join a social media site is very much like a contract. You sound as though you don't believe people should be expected to live up to their contracts, their word or anything else that measures their responsibilities. That sounds like how many such as yourself describe liberals. Nobody is "limiting your free speech" when they refuse to allow you to spread and say vicious things that incite violence. I understand that expecting Trump and his ilk to stop inciting violence seems like something you refuse to condone. But maybe that's a you problem and not a free speech issue.
And this isn't some new ground. The courts have decided on similar cases before. Unlike yourself, they have sided with the fact you agreed to certain rules and guidelines and you are expected to live up to that agreement. Tell you what, the next time anyone gets banned from this board, Complain to PPE that he's infringing on that posters freeedom of speech and see how far that gets you.
Free Speech and the Regulation of SocialMediaContent
BTW- This isn't some left wing media site as people love to dismiss without even looking at it. It actually shows legal ways posting on social media may or may not be considered a free speech issue. I actually think you would like it.
But allow me to pose this to you. I understand that comparing Dawgtalkers to FB may seem like comparing apples to oranges in your eyes. But consider a few things here. Both are internet platforms. Both allow you to post on about any subject you wish. Both are open to the public and anyone can join.
The big difference is that FB, Twitter and youtube have become very successful platforms with millions of users. They have more gadgets let's say in posting links and such.
So it appears on the surface that you're not against people having the ability to to have guidelines to what is posted on their sites, but you somehow think if someone is very successful at it only then are their rights somehow less that a site with far less users.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
So I say again, they are more successful at it. And should we limit the rights of business because some morons think every meme on FB is news?
They do have posts by media outlets where you can hit the link in order to reach a news site. But that's an entirely different thing. We can post stories and give links to news web sites here as well.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
As long as we carry it through. We seem eager to limit the rights of a business who makes guns as an example because of some of the morons you mention.
I have already liked and said I don't disagree at this point. All I am saying is it is something that probably needs to be changed because more than just morons use those services in a trusted way.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Who is "we"? And are people trying to limit the rights of business or making them accountable? In the case of guns I agree that trying to make gun manufacturers responsible for the actions their customers take by using their guns is moronic.
But I also think trying to force social media to allow anyone, to say anything, at any time, even to the point of inciting violence and causing an insurrection is moronic too.
I can see a certain amount of morons on both sides.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Trump unloads on Kavanaugh in new Michael Wolff book
Former President Donald Trump, in a book out Tuesday by Michael Wolff, says he is "very disappointed" in votes by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, his own hard-won nominee, and that he "hasn’t had the courage you need to be a great justice."
Driving the news: "There were so many others I could have appointed, and everyone wanted me to," Trump told Wolff in an interview for the cheekily titled "Landslide."
"Where would he be without me? I saved his life. He wouldn't even be in a law firm. Who would have had him? Nobody. Totally disgraced. Only I saved him."
Between the lines: After the election, as Axios' Jonathan Swan reported in his "Off the Rails" series, Trump saved his worst venom for people who he believed owed him because he got them their jobs.
He would rant endlessly about the treachery of Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, reminding people of how he shot up in the primary polls after Trump endorsed him. Over lunches in the private dining room adjoining the Oval Office, Trump used to reminisce about how he saved Kavanaugh by sticking by him. For Kavanaugh to not do Trump’s bidding on the matter of ultimate importance — overturning the election — was, in Trump's mind, a betrayal of the highest order.
Wolff writes that Trump feels betrayed by all three justices he put on the court, including Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, but "reserved particular bile for Kavanaugh."
Recalling the brutal confirmation fight, Trump said: "Practically every senator called me ... and said, 'Cut him loose, sir, cut him loose. He’s killing us, Kavanaugh.' ... I said, 'I can’t do that.'" "I had plenty of time to pick somebody else," Trump continued. "I went through that thing and fought like hell for Kavanaugh — and I saved his life, and I saved his career. At great expense to myself ... okay? I fought for that guy and kept him."
"I don’t want anything ... but I am very disappointed in him, in his rulings," Trump said.
"I can’t even believe what's happening. I'm very disappointed in Kavanaugh. I just told you something I haven’t told a lot of people. In retrospect, he just hasn't had the courage you need to be a great justice. I’m basing this on more than just the election."
Wolff gives an entertaining account of what it was like for the book authors who were given Trump interviews at Mar-a-Lago:
It's called the Living Room, but it's in fact the Mar-a-Lago lobby, a vaulted-ceiling rococo grand entrance, part hunting lodge, part Renaissance palazzo. But it is really the throne room. ... He sits, in regulation dark suit and shiny baby-blue or fire-red tie, on a low chair in the center of the room, his legs almost daintily curled to the side, seeing a lineup of supplicants or chatting on the phone, all public conversations.
And why would Trump talk to Wolff, who wrote two earlier bestsellers with devastating accounts of Trump dysfunction?
"The fact that he was talking to me might only reasonably be explained by his absolute belief that his voice alone has reality-altering powers," Wolff writes. Trump told Wolff: "I don’t blame you. I blame my people."
I finally agree with trump on something! Kavanaugh isn’t fit for the job. Too bad it’s taken the Don this long to see that he never should have been raised to that level.
That all depends on which "Don" you agree with. The Don that nominated him and claimed he was the most fit person to hold the position. Or the Don that now attacks him because he didn't do everything he wanted him to do. You know, the two faces of Don.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Kavanaugh, while leaning conservative, has been a remarkably non-partisan Justice. Despite what liberal doom-and-gloomers have been predicting, he's sided with the liberal justices on numerous occasions.
Trump is only saying he is unfit because Kavanaugh didn't 'come' and 'heel' when called.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Five Texas family members arrested in Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol
BORGER, Texas (KAMR/KCIT) – Among the latest arrests in the wake of the deadly Capitol riot on Jan. 6 are five members of the same Borger, Texas family.
While notable suspects have included a Florida pastor-and-son duo, this may be the largest group of relatives to face charges in the attack.
A tipster led FBI investigators to father Thomas “Tom” Munn, mother Dawn Munn, and their children, Joshua Munn, Kayli Munn and Kristi Munn, after spotting several Snapchat and Facebook posts on Kristi Munn’s account, according to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
One of the posts included the five family members – all tagged on Facebook – along with another family member, a minor child, who hasn’t been charged. The caption reads, “Washington D.C. here we come!! #StopTheSteal #TrumpIsMyPresident.”
The investigation revealed multiple videos and social media messages indicating that Kristi, Tom, Dawn, Josh, and Kayli Munn traveled from Borger to Washington D.C. and entered the U.S. Capitol on January 6.
The tipster alerted the FBI to two screenshots of Kristi Munn’s Facebook account and six screenshots of Kristi Munn’s Snapchat account, according to the criminal complaint.
Kristi Munn’s social media posts led investigators to the profiles of other family members, including Thomas Munn, who, according to the court document, posted on Dec. 28, 2020, “POTUS HAS REQUESTED YOUR ATTENDANCE WASHINGTON DC JANUARY 6TH 2021.” He allegedly added, “Our President has only asked two things from us so far… #1 Vote #2 January 6, 2021.”
On Jan. 5, investigators say another post on Munn’s account included what appeared to be the family’s trailer with the caption, “We made it to our hotel just outside DC… 1,600 miles in 24hrs! Passed this guy an hour ago…”
On Jan 6. Kayli Munn wrote in a Facebook conversation that the rally was “great,” adding, “Holy [expletive] we were inside the [expletive] (sic)capital!,” according to the document.
Investigators said they found another post on Dawn Munn’s messenger account to a person named Clara that read: “We went in and stormed the (sic)capital! … We were in (sic)capital!!! … I do mean IN the building!!”
The U.S. District Court said surveillance and social media video also shows the Munn family inside the Capitol building.
The family members face charges of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building.
I agree. I think Kavanaugh has shown to be very balanced.
I think Roberts has been masterful in his handling of the court. I believe he put much effort in to getting justices to maybe swing a bit off a perceived norm unless it was just a bellwether issue for them to show some unity in the court.
It isn't healthy when you keep getting split votes along what people see as partisan lines. Sometimes that is going to happen, and that's OK...but every decision can't be that way. Various laws aren't always constructed along political lines or constructed in such a manner that it is always going to produce a divided court.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
I agree as well. Without speaking to the individual merits of the decisions themselves, I'm glad to see when justices actually go against the priorities of the people who appointed them, because you at least know that portion of the system is working.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
In the end, it doesn't matter if a justice likes a law or not. They are there to determine if it meets constitutional scrutiny.
I get that some are disciples of a living document and others are more textual in belief...I being more textual...but it's hard for me to believe there can be all that much divide as often as it happens. I also find it hard to believe that you don't have more swing voters. With a few over the years it was almost as if they didn't even need to hear the case because you knew how they were going to decide.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
In the end, it doesn't matter if a justice likes a law or not. They are there to determine if it meets constitutional scrutiny.
I get that some are disciples of a living document and others are more textual in belief...I being more textual...but it's hard for me to believe there can be all that much divide as often as it happens. I also find it hard to believe that you don't have more swing voters. With a few over the years it was almost as if they didn't even need to hear the case because you knew how they were going to decide.
If you believe that you be textual, then read the part about being amended. The founding fathers knew that they were not authors of scripture, and never, ever, intended the constitution to be viewed in that manner.
It is the most asinine point regarding our constitution that I have ever heard. I know that it is popular gospel among the conservatives, but it is total nonsense.
There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.
I'm glad to see when justices actually go against the priorities of the people who appointed them, because you at least know that portion of the system is working.
In the end, it doesn't matter if a justice likes a law or not. They are there to determine if it meets constitutional scrutiny.
I get that some are disciples of a living document and others are more textual in belief...I being more textual...but it's hard for me to believe there can be all that much divide as often as it happens. I also find it hard to believe that you don't have more swing voters. With a few over the years it was almost as if they didn't even need to hear the case because you knew how they were going to decide.
If you believe that you be textual, then read the part about being amended. The founding fathers knew that they were not authors of scripture, and never, ever, intended the constitution to be viewed in that manner.
It is the most asinine point regarding our constitution that I have ever heard. I know that it is popular gospel among the conservatives, but it is total nonsense.
Sorry pal, I have read the constitution plenty. Being textual doesn't mean it can't be amended. Go talk to someone else about being asinine and nonsensical.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
I'm glad to see when justices actually go against the priorities of the people who appointed them, because you at least know that portion of the system is working.
When has that happened with Kagan and Sotomayor?
Just recently they voted with the majority, so it happened then.
Clarence Thomas sided with the liberal wing recently.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
