Looks like Republicans voted very similar to all other recent elections. Democrats also voted very similar to all other recent elections excluding last one where over 10 million more came out to support a guy who didn't even campaign.
Trump supporters, how do you square this?
- Thread starter CP87
- Start date
Fryowa
Administrator
This is in no way an endorsement for either of the rotten scumbags who ran for office, but the "democratic" party voters did this to themselves.
Hilarious how they spent hundreds of millions on advertisement mud-slinging and rah-rah-rah when they should've spent hundreds of millions on improving voter turn out.
That's all this bullshit is, people. Almost all voters already have their minds made up ahead of time and TV commercials aren't changing those minds. They (either side) need to get people to the polls and that's all it is. It's a race to see how many people each side can get to show up on Tuesday.
I went to sleep like a baby Tuesday night leaving the top section of my ballot blank.
Hilarious how they spent hundreds of millions on advertisement mud-slinging and rah-rah-rah when they should've spent hundreds of millions on improving voter turn out.
That's all this bullshit is, people. Almost all voters already have their minds made up ahead of time and TV commercials aren't changing those minds. They (either side) need to get people to the polls and that's all it is. It's a race to see how many people each side can get to show up on Tuesday.
I went to sleep like a baby Tuesday night leaving the top section of my ballot blank.
thedukeofearl
Well-Known Member
The best of all possible worlds
thedukeofearl
Well-Known Member
x.com
x.com
Has anyone seen this graph before?
Isn't x merely a platform for musk's deranged mind
No worries he will now get huge tax cuts so he can stop the losses on his platform
Not at all. Unless you think supporting free speech is "deranged mind".
Musk was willing to lose billions to save free speech. Without him it was gone and we would be North Korea.
Hawkboys
Well-Known Member
Except with 99% more other freedoms...
Once freedom of speech is gone, everything else follows.
Hay Man
Well-Known Member
Wow, you really dipped yourself deep into the MAGA propaganda.
Hope it all works out great for you.
Fryowa
Administrator
Jesus Mary Henry Christ...
I know you said you only get your news from twitter, and you said you like Elon Musk, and you're really into tin hat conspiracy shit, but you went completely off the charts with this one. Honestly questioning your mental state now unless this is a really good trolling attempt.
If you think twitter going away turns this country into north Korea you have outed yourself as 100% looney toons. I'm being totally serious. Discussing reality with you does not make a whole lot of sense anymore. I used to think you were just a Rogan tin-hatter which...while still nut-jobby...is at least somewhat manageable. But this?
Not having Elon Musk owning twitter makes the United States North Korea...
Maybe you should get your news someplace else other than twitter and then make your conclusions instead of thinking this guy is some deity protecting the free world from the mind robbers. This is some serious Jim Jones worship level shit here. If Elon told you to jump off the Empire State building because he thought our ability to fly was only being prevented by mainstream media and all we need to do is jump, would you try it? Dead serious question.
Holy cow.
So which part are you arguing? The part where free speech is under attack? Or the part where losing free speech sets you down the path towards a North Korean-type government?
If it's the first, Mark Zuckerberg himself talked about the government censorship of Facebook. Harris is directly quoted saying something needs to be done about X spreading "disinformation". They aren't suggesting they want to stiffle free speech. They're outright calling for it. It's not falling for a conspiracy to say Harris is against free speech after watching her say something needs to be done about free speech. Hell John Kerry said the 1st amendment is a huge roadblock for doing what is necessary to stop disinformation.
If it's the second, it's not like I'm saying if they take away free speech today, soon they will arrest you over non violent social media posts like they're doing in Europe. Then, after decades of going down that road, the government would eventually be like North Korea.
I get that you don't pay attention to politics, and that's more than fine. But don't pretend to act like you know what's going on if you don't even pay attention. It's extremely well documented what's going on. You just have to be smart enough to substitute the word "disinformation" in with "free speech".
Hay Man
Well-Known Member
"Trump likewise champions freedom of speech for himself and his allies while attacking it when it protects his critics and political opponents. If Trump had his way, flag burners would be jailed, purveyors of "fake news" would lose their broadcast licenses, and news outlets would have to pay him damages when their coverage strikes him as unfair."
Is this the same free speech you talk of?
I completely disagree with all of that too. Glad he never actually did any of that.
Hay Man
Well-Known Member
YET
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Yup.
Yea maybe he just wanted to wait until the 2nd term he might not have ever gotten......
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
That's what I don't get. Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, Rosie O'Donnell, and the like all think he's going to put people in internment camps, send us to attack Russia, get rid of money, punish disobedience of his command by making the offender watch The View, or whatever the hell they say. Say what you want about him, good or bad, but I come back to your statement, why didn't we see any of that during his first term?
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
Would never happen. That sentence would violate federal laws prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment....
kicker22
Well-Known Member
To be fair there's nothing wrong with agreeing that something needs to be done about the spreading of disinformation. In general, and I'm not simply applying it to campaigning, but there is a major problem with people making shit up and pushing it all over social media platforms so people can run with it thinking its real. It does happen and is a problem. I'm not a twitter guy, and couldn't care less whether it folded or not, but there's a fine line between wanting to stop the spread of BS and trying to take away one's first amendment rights.
Were at an a point in time where people have stopped researching things for themselves and there absolutely is a problem with pushing false claims and made up stuff out to the masses intentionally who will take off and run with it. I don't and have never had a X or twitter account and don't use facebook or other types of social media so as I said I'm not applying this necessarily to political stuff, but I have absolutely zero problems with what isn't true (and can be confirmed as such) being filtered out. There's a fine line between expressing an opinion and falsifying facts and it does need to stop.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
In principle, I think most would agree that in the day and age of social media, gross misinformation is a real concern, primarily because people who can't or don't make an effort to critically evaluate what they are reading often make dangerous decisions based upon what they see.
The problem is, how is "misinformation" defined, and who defines it?
From a political perspective, 1st amendment rights were repeatedly violated over the past few years under the guise of suppressing what was deemed misinformation. Posts about the true efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, the validity of Hunter Biden's laptop, Joe Biden's mental acuity (accusations that the media was altering videos), Hillary Clinton's wiping of mass emails and involvement in the Russian collusion hoax, etc., etc.) were all suppressed at some point. Some would argue that several of those accusations were later retracted and the information allowed, but that's the whole point, the suppression of TRUE misinformation would never require later retraction.
And, where does it stop?
Giving the State authority to determine what is a lie and what is not and the power to suppress it is a huge slippery slope. Obviously, the right to free speech is not absolute - hate speech, yelling "fire!" in a crowded venue, verbal threats, etc., are crimes for obvious reasons, but adding subjective interpretation of posted information with the possibility of censorship and/or punishment ultimately could be more egregious than the consequences of the potential spread of what was deemed misinformation in the first place.
