MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Trump tweets about the censorship of peo...

Trump tweets about the censorship of people on the "Right" within social media

posted 7 years ago by [deleted]
40 replies | jump to latest

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1030777074959757313

Over the course of 23 minutes, the president tweeted 4 tweets stating the following:

Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won’t let that happen. They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others.......

.....Censorship is a very dangerous thing & absolutely impossible to police. If you are weeding out Fake News, there is nothing so Fake as CNN & MSNBC, & yet I do not ask that their sick behavior be removed. I get used to it and watch with a grain of salt, or don’t watch at all..

....Too many voices are being destroyed, some good & some bad, and that cannot be allowed to happen. Who is making the choices, because I can already tell you that too many mistakes are being made. Let everybody participate, good & bad, and we will all just have to figure it out!

All of the fools that are so focused on looking only at Russia should start also looking in another direction, China. But in the end, if we are smart, tough and well prepared, we will get along with everyone!

YouTube, Facebook and other platforms seem to have caught his attention.

I wonder what will happen next.

[–] Gd5150 (11965) 7 years ago

Twitter, Youtube, Google, Facebook, Yahoo. All the fascist demokkkrat big social media. Half the country has known about this for a lot longer than the last month.

They all worked on the Obama 2012 campaign and bragged about it.

Now that they’ve been caught they had to cook up a Russian fantasy. Imagine that, its conveniently trying to distract from the corrupt demokkkrat DOJ too. Wonder why?

No ideas. No solutions. No platform. The 2018 demokkkrat party.

#HateIsAllThatsLEFT

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Alex Jones was inciting violence, which violated the community guidelines in their Terms of Service. They can do whatever they want, it's their platform. Or are you still stuck on communist doctrine that you have a right to use private property uninvited because it should all be public property that belongs to the state?

Inciting violence is not protected 1st Amendment speech in the United States, maybe it's that way for you in Russia but not here. Get with the program.

[–] Lord Rake (4536) 7 years ago

Will you give an example of him inciting violence? In context.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Is it that hard for you to use google and learn that was the reason Twitter cited for his most recent suspension? Your opinion of whether they got the context right is irrelevant since it's their private platform. They can choose to interpret his actions however they want to enforce their guidelines when using their property.

[–] Lord Rake (4536) 7 years ago

Is the example coming?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

*yawn*

[–] Lord Rake (4536) 7 years ago

exactly

[–] NorrinRad (5470) 7 years ago

Good job NOT providing a link that would have just given Alex Jones more visibility and notoriety and views.

I applaud your discipline.

If these sycophants can find their way here they can find their way to anything posted, tweeted, linked or liked by Alex jones, as if they don't already know that.

You get 4 stars from me.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Well thanks. But I'm sure I don't deserve such high praise for doing what comes so easily. I've never been vested enough to take seriously anything that gasbag conspiracy loon or his supporters have to say. But in this rare instance I did take an interest, I didn't see the point of dignifying his incitements to violence with a link.

But I did get a kick out of seeing these low post count socks show up within minutes of each other making it far too obvious it was the same person trying too desperately to troll.

It was strangely satisfying and funny to see how frustrated he got that he couldn't bait me the first time and, what a strange coincidence, up pops this even lower post count Alex Jones fanboy sock to continue trying two minutes later. rofl!

What this low IQ troll doesn't seem to get is that his low post counts make it far too obvious that he can't keep a sustained account without getting banned. It's like he's trying to troll with a troll badge stamped on his forehead. lolz.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 7 years ago

If giant corporations are censoring in your favor, something is wrong with you.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Your problem is that you repeat Alex Jones slogans without bothering to think if they're true because you don't have a brain.

[–] Lord Rake (4536) 7 years ago

Or I understand that arguing with someone who wishes to argue emotions over proof is a waste of time and only occasionally amusing. Jones' is entertaining when he gets the chills or goes overthetop screaming about silliness. Banning him is political for the midterms and it's like every other lefty scheme, not well thought out. If they can prove him wrong over and over again then he will become irrelevant but instead they decide to prove him right. I have a low post count because running in circles about hypotheticals is a waste of time to me. Provide an example of Jones encouraging violence and I will say you are right or explain his context. You are actually more like Alex than you think, when he makes a wild assertion he says check the documents, you say check google.

Every time I've listened to his show he makes a point to advise against violence, if he says something like destroy he will then clarify by saying "politically speaking". Be it to cover his ass or because he actually cares I don't know. If I am stupid, "I might be but not relative to you" just give me an example of Jones calling for violence and my dumb mind will be flipped.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

It is a waste of time, that's why it's not worth my time to keep arguing with you when you are too emotional to have a logical discussion. That's because you know you'd get owned. It's not hard for you to find the clip of what he got suspended over. You refuse because you want to keep this discussion on an emotional level because you know the empirical evidence demonstrates you're wrong.

[–] Lord Rake (4536) 7 years ago

You could have linked to the video 30 times already and it would have taken less time then responding to my posts on the matter. I might also add that you are a racist for wanting to own another human. You are hitler and I don't take bs from hitler.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

lololol! And you could have found the video 30 times already in the time you responded. What's your point?

I don't believe in helping people who can't help themselves. I just couldn't be bothered to waste my own time when you keep wasting mine begging me to spoonfeed you. But you do need to do a better job getting a handle on your autism when you so clearly struggle between the difference between figurative and literal.

[–] Lord Rake (4536) 7 years ago

"But you do need to do a better job getting a handle on your autism when you so clearly struggle between the difference between figurative and literal."

I think you need to take a class on sentence structure. I might also add that you are arguing with me, while also claiming I am autistic. So I'm at the disadvantage in this scenario and you are picking on an autistic. Shame.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Well yeah, you're disadvantaged because you're off your autism meds. But that's your responsibility, not mine. Try and have a little more dignity than to be perpetually groveling for my pity. It starts by brutally confronting your own incompetence so you can do something about it. That way you can get over your deep sense of shame.

[–] Lord Rake (4536) 7 years ago

So now you are arguing with and even insulting an untreated autistic. That's low even for you.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Au contraire, motivating a hapless autistic kid to get back on his meds is a noble and selfless act on my part. This won't make sense to you until you get back on your meds. 🙃

[–] Lord Rake (4536) 6 years ago

I have down syndrome actually and there are no meds for it. Yet, I destroyed your arguments and made you look like a fool.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Nah, that's just what you think because you have downs syndrome. It really is tragic since it means there are no meds that can remedy your permanent addled state. You've earned my pity.

[–] Lord Rake (4536) 7 years ago

"But I did get a kick out of seeing these low post count socks show up within minutes of each other making it far too obvious it was the same person trying too desperately to troll."

One hell of a conspiracy theory you have there.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

It's a fact.

[–] Lord Rake (4536) 7 years ago

Not a fact, I have one account started on imdb in like 2007 and then I transferred here when it closed the message boards. You are delusional.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Suuuure you do Lord Sock.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 7 years ago

You're trying to no-platform someone in casual conversation???

[–] NorrinRad (5470) 7 years ago

You're trying to no-platform someone in casual conversation???

Please elaborate. You are asking me a question that isn't well defined in or out of context. What specifically are you saying that I am doing or attempting to do and to whom?

[–] B1cKsurN (17826) 7 years ago

It's not because it doesn't exist.

[–] B1cKsurN (17826) 7 years ago

I would also love this example that doesn't exist.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Of course you would Lord Rake and your obvious sock. Just don't blame me for your laziness.

[–] B1cKsurN (17826) 7 years ago

I looked, can't find anything.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Of course you couldn't Lord Rake and your obvious sock. Just don't blame me for your incompetence.

[–] B1cKsurN (17826) 7 years ago

"I can't come up with anything, so I'll accuse you of being a clone."

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Hehe. Well yeah Lord Sock, you're repeating yourself. You already told me you couldn't find anything and I'm telling you it's because you're incompetent. I also know you're a sock, but that's really besides the point.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

LOL

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 7 years ago

Yeah I supported Ron Paul in 2008 also, but it's a shame the far left said private property is racist and that we needed to have bloodthirsty McCain instead.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

You shouldn't base your decisions on what the far left thinks. Duh.

[–] Keelai (36155) 7 years ago

Jones repeatedly breaks the user agreement of different platforms. I'm surprised he wasn't kicked off social media a long time ago.

I don't see Fox news hiring Alex Jones. Why not?

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I agree that Jones should have been kicked off of various platforms well over a decade ago Keelai, simply for breaking their T&Cs and with no further gusto.

Sadly that didn't happen and then he was properly victimised by separate competing companies within 24 hours in what appears to be a constructed manoeuvre to silence him with no relevant contemporary context.

They martyred him and that is the most stupid thing to do to a loonie tune like him and his audience.

[–] Keelai (36155) 7 years ago

Many people complained to various companies which caused them to do what they should've done years ago. They don't want to take the risk of a lawsuit if one of his unstable followers do something like the guy who shot at a pizzeria.

Plenty of conservatives with money who could start their own platform or Fox could give him an hour. They'd have more money for lawsuits than suing only Jones.