Parler was removed by Amazon, Apple, and Google ,effectively knocking them out of the market . Conservatives were flocking to Parler after Twitter started to shut down conservative speech . A wave of conservatives left Twitter and Facebook after they permanently banned Trump.

“AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently motivated by political animus. It is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter. Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching its contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future.”

Fighting Back: Parler, Rumble File Suits Against Amazon and Google Respectively | MMG NEWS (https://www.mmgnews.com/fighting-back-parler-rumble-file-suits-against-amazon-and-google-respectively/)

Whatever anyone thinks of Trump, or how much anyone would like him to go away , the notion that Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Bezos should be allowed to silence him and any potential competitor like Parler that might allow him a platform is completely antithetical to democracy or a free market of ideas. The power of these Big Tech companies to control public discourse is a clear and present danger....not just to those they disagree with , but to everyone who values basic free speech ideals.

“A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech as the de facto arbiter of free speech.” Elon Musk

“AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently motivated by political animus. It is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter. Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching its contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future.”

Tom, you need to find a new right-wing law site. This one isn't helping you since it's consistently wrong. They and you need to read the fine print on the contract.


Whatever anyone thinks of Trump .............................. the notion that Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Bezos should be allowed to silence him ....................................... is completely antithetical to democracy or a free market of ideas.

Tom, I thought you supported free enterprise. Zuckerberg, et al, are not silencing anyone. They are exercising their free market right to dispose of their property as they wish. You used to be in favor of that.


The power of these Big Tech companies to control public discourse is a clear and present danger....not just to those they disagree with , but to everyone who values basic free speech ideals.

No, no, Tom. They are hardly "controlling public discourse". They are managing their own websites - huge difference. Free speech ideals are still valued, but apparently not by you as you try to silence those you disagree with.

Try being a little less hysterical.

You mean the free markets don't work as good as advertised Tom? They need regulations? The rich guys don't know what they're doing anymore?

Perish the thought Tal capitalism must be allowed full reign and the moguls of industry obeyed

Free markets must be allowed to exist . Monopolies being created by rent seeking enterprise limit competition . They are anti-free market . Antitrust laws prohibit price fixing, the operation of cartels, unfair collusive practices, and the abuse of monopoly power that undermine healthy competition. And it is doubly destructive when monopolies dominate the public square and stifle the free exchange of ideas ,especially when the companies that dominate the market have a clear bias and actively are used to stifle debate.
It is one thing to dominate the market . It is another thing to have so much power as to prevent access to the market . It is called the 'essential facilities 'doctrine and in our laws ,a company that dominates an essential facility must provide access to it at a reasonable price .

amazon, google are prime examples of companies that have grown too big and they are monopolistic in their behaviour. The market must be regulated if we are not to be at the mercy of large corporations

Do businesses have the right, duty, obligation to secure their services and brand against actors that could damage their business? Sure they do.

Ask Ben how that works.

amazon, google are prime examples of companies that have grown too big and they are monopolistic in their behaviour.Absolutely true, and you can throw in Facebook and Twitter while you are at it.

Do businesses have the right, duty, obligation to secure their services and brand against actors that could damage their business? Sure they do.

Ask Ben how that works. To my knowledge Ben has never censored political thought . It is one of the main reasons I keep coming back here .

And Ben does not have a monopoly Nor is AMHD a part of like minded tech companies in a quasi -cartel preventing competition in discussion forums from existing .

This should be a no brainer for you .
Progressives are ;or were ,on board with breaking up hi tech monopolies .

https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/how-elizabeth-warren-came-up-with-a-plan-to-break-up-big-tech

https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/5/17/18628627/democrats-big-tech-facebook-sanders-buttigieg

To my knowledge Ben has never censored political thought . It is one of the main reasons I keep coming back here .

And Ben does not have a monopoly Nor is AMHD a part of like minded tech companies in a quasi -cartel preventing competition in discussion forums from existing .

That wasn't my point Tom, the right to protect a site/product/business from corrupt abuses from outside players was the point, and let's face it, the dufus and his behavior could certainly be considered TOXIC, as well as violent looney fringe groups. Let's also face the fact these huge companies didn't get big in a vacuum, and smaller companies you call "competition" depend on the hugeness of those companies to fuel their own business.

Instead of suing for access, maybe invest in some cyber security to address why they were dropped in the first place would be a more prudent course of action.

Don't worry your fringers can still plot and plan on other dark web vehicles like the rest of the conspiracy theorists and crazies, and dufus demented doodoo heads.

What goes around comes around . When your ox gets gored maybe you will sing a different tune .

I am frankly shocked how liberals can accept thought and speech suppression . As much as I have been critical of many things the left proposed ,I have never advocated the suppression of expressing those ideas . As I mentioned previously . There was a time when what you call "hate speech " was defended by liberals . It wasn't that long ago when civil libertarians defended the speech of domestic terrorists .
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech

1978 they defended the right of neo-nazis in Skoki Illinois .They defended the demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia,who were protesting the taking down of Confederate statues .

Hey the Chicoms disappeared Jack Ma and Amazon and Google disappeared a company they don't like . No difference ;right ? I suppose it is just as good that powerful oligarchs in the high tech cartel can control the free exchange of ideas just as the Chicoms can .But you should be just as worried as I about the future of free expression and especially about mega monopoly cartel's ability to dictate the terms .

As much as I have been critical of many things the left proposed ,I have never advocated the suppression of expressing those ideas .I think they are all in favor of suppressing speech which raises questions for which they have no real answers.

Ahh the good old days Tom when common sense and civility were norms despite ideological differences. Before words were weaponized and became tools to radicalize. Vanilla ISSIS domestic groups changed things.

The downside of technology in the wrong hands.

The downside of technology in the wrong hands. yep well I'm hoping someone in the Apple/Google /Amazon ]Twitter ]Facebook sphere is thinking long term. They think they have bought out the Dems (which was the easy part because Quid is for sale) . In reality they were doing the Dem's bidding .

But now that the Dems have the power ,just wait until the Dems turn on them . As I already mentioned ;their take down is just a matter of time . The progressives in the Dem ranks hate big tech even more than conservatives . Compare it to the night of the long knives since you guys like Nazi comparisons so much .

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LhwD7-QGjRs/hqdefault.jpg

While I agree that some of the Tech companies are acting in a monopolists fashion and need breaking down and regulating.
They have made far more revenue during this pandemic with the captive audience.

Gotta love the American Dream.....

While I agree that some of the Tech companies are acting in a monopolists fashion and need breaking down and regulating.
They have made far more revenue during this pandemic with the captive audience.Isn't that what typically happens with a monopoly?

Isn't that what typically happens with a monopoly?

Capitalism at it most prevalent.

Capitalism at it most prevalent.Capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production. It has nothing directly to do with monopolies.

Capitalism at it most prevalent.
A better adjective -- capitalism at its worst.

capitalism at its worst.Is capitalism the problem, or is govt. protection of big tech the problem?

Both.
American capitalism is based on the pursuit of wealth, the government failed to limit how these companies could go about this pursuit and now we have few large firms controlling many aspects of our existence.
This isn't aimed at one Government in particular, but the whole system.
Can't cry foul when those companies are doing exactly what they have been directed to do over the years.

The fringers cry foul against big tech because they dumped the dufus.

the government failed to limit how these companies could go about this pursuit and now we have few large firms controlling many aspects of our existence.

rent seeking .... engaging in or involving the manipulation of public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits.
That is not free market capitalism .I would argue the economic system that has evolved is more like mercantilism where large businesses buy monopoly privileges from the leviathan government .
An easy example on the local level is taxi driving . In a free market anyone could be able to put a taxi sign on their car and start driving for a business. But government makes arrangements where someone has to buy in for the "privilege" to have a taxi license or "medallion". So now instead of owning my own taxi business and achieving the American dream f having my own growing business ..(maybe in a couple years I buy another car and hire my brother to drive it etc ) ;instead I.end up being the employee of someone who may never have driven a car in their lives That system prevents competition. The essence of capitalism is competition . So how could that system be capitalist

Take it to the level I am talking about where hi tech companies can create a cartel and decide which of their competitors can play in the sandbox . This is called horizontal monopoly ;and the anti-trust laws were create to prevent that .

Take it to the level I am talking about where hi tech companies can create a cartel and decide which of their competitors can play in the sandbox . This is called horizontal monopoly ;and the anti-trust laws were create to prevent that .
Not just limited to tech firms, but all over American and international business and banking.
Face it the system is broken, but what can really be done to fix it ?

This happened before and I believe a populist nationalist waded into the swamp and created the Sherman Anti-Trust act making such monopolistic practices illegal. Parler has filed an anti-trust complaint against Amazon. Depending on the outcome we will see how broken the system is . Also Sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to be repealed or amended . It makes exception for providers who block so called offensive material .The reason it needs amending is because it give broad discretion to the providers to decide what is offensive .

You do realise that removing section 230 will lead to vastly increased censorship on the social streams....
Here included.

American capitalism is based on the pursuit of wealthI'm always amazed when I read this statement. Who on this board does not want to make a good living and accumulate wealth? Any economic system not based on the pursuit of profit is doomed. You can't survive without profit.

spoken like a true capitalist, there are other systems

spoken like a true capitalist, there are other systemsTell us about the one where people don't care about profits. You guys are dreaming.

This happened before and I believe a populist nationalist waded into the swamp and created the Sherman Anti-Trust act making such monopolistic practices illegal. Parler has filed an anti-trust complaint against Amazon. Depending on the outcome we will see how broken the system is . Also Sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to be repealed or amended . It makes exception for providers who block so called offensive material .The reason it needs amending is because it give broad discretion to the providers to decide what is offensive .

You don't think promoting violence and inciting a riot is an impeachable......I mean....a good reason to be banned?

Tal I have read the transcript of Trump's speech there is nothing that would incite a riot but I have no doubt that the rioters acted out of boredom they unleashed their fury that they had listened so long to Trump as he bored them into tears and fury

Tal I have read the transcript of Trump's speech there is nothing that would incite a riot but I have no doubt that the rioters acted out of boredom they unleashed their fury that they had listened so long to Trump as he bored them into tears and fury

Reading what Trump said is not nearly descriptive of the actual event. He has to be seen to understand how he incited the mob.

There is not a doubt in the world that he did so. Over here, it's on TV 24/7, with every day more video becoming available to solidify that Trump sent the mob to the Capitol to intimidate - or far worse - the Congress to object to the count.

Otherwise, there's be no reason to impeach him. The text alone is nowhere near the video.

In this case, the pictures are worth 10,000 words!

There is not a doubt in the world that he did so.Only if you think Athos is the only person "in the world". Otherwise, there is a lot of doubt about that.

Only if you think Athos is the only person "in the world". Otherwise, there is a lot of doubt about that.

Well, true - the doubters wear swastika jackets, tee shirts with "Auschwitz", scream "hang Mike Pence", beat a policeman to death at the Capitol entrance, swear to kill Nancy Pelosi, and so forth and so forth. Then there are the doubting white evangelists who display a flag with Jesus' name on it. If Jesus came again, they'd be the first to crucify him.

"In the world" means rational people with IQs over that of a plant. I didn't think I needed to mention that - I guess I did.

Well, true - the doubters wear swastika jackets, tee shirts with "Auschwitz", scream "hang Mike Pence", beat a policeman to death at the Capitol entrance, swear to kill Nancy Pelosi, and so forth and so forth.Oh good grief. In your narrow little world, all the rational people agree with you since, after all, your opinion reigns supreme. In the real world, that is hardly true.

Oh good grief. In your narrow little world, all the rational people agree with you since, after all, your opinion reigns supreme. In the real world, that is hardly true.

Where is that real world JL, surely you don't think it is in DC? I don't think it was the speech that inflamed the mob they were already primed by weeks of Trump speeches. The fact that they were there was enough for violence to ignite

I was speaking of the real world outside the little world Athos lives in, and I don't mean that in any insulting fashion. We all live in little worlds to one degree or another. I don't think it was Trump's speeches so much as the realization that the election had problems and the perception, true or otherwise, that those problems contributed to the result. And there is still seething anger about that. There will be but little unity until that issue is settled.

You do realise that removing section 230 will lead to vastly increased censorship on the social streams....
Here included.

fair enough . I worded it incorrectly . Sec 230 needs reform. the words "or otherwise objectionable " is too broad given the intent of the section .It gives sites protection for removing anything they want .Being able to remove anti-terrorism ,child sex abuse and cyber stalking is not the same as suppression of political speech. The goal should be that the net remain free and fair; especially in our current environment when a group of companies can collude to control political thought content .

The intent of 230 was to “to encourage telecommunications and information service providers to deploy new technologies and policies” for filtering or blocking offensive materials online ....not to filter out political thought the site owners do not agree with.
S. Rept. 104-23 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT OF 1995 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/104th-congress/senate-report/23/1)

The importance of the net has grown since the section was adopted . It has evolved into the main public square . 1996 few people spent much time on the net . Today net surfing occupies hours of people's time .It has replaced the news paper as the primary source of information, If you look at it in that content then what the big tech companies did was controlling content by making sure their smaller competition could not get paper and printing ink to publish .

And it has gone even further than that. Political campaigns are conducted on the net. What big tech did this cycle was to be the defacto arbiters of the political debate on the net . Political ideas were filtered through self appointed "fact checkers " ,and at a minimum were labelled as missing content ;at worse they were removed from the sites . The sites became much more than conduits of content .They became the editors of content .

I would not even have much objection to that . As some here have argued ,they are private companies . What they did however by blocking a competitors site from the public forum was to become the FINAL editors of political debate on the net ....and that is wholly unacceptable. If sec 230 protects this type of activity then it must be reformed .

I was speaking of the real world outside the little world Athos lives in, and I don't mean that in any insulting fashion.

Jl, you have the funniest way of expressing things that always shoots you in the foot.

Sites are still privately owned and as such well within their rights to be run by their own Terms of Service and how they see fit.
Facebook is well known for it's moderating style, while user driven, the results tend on the draconian side.

Intent vs the letter can be very different things and that is what keeps many Judges and lawyers employed.

Yes there is intent and unintended consequences . When unintended consequences are harmful then the issue needs reexamination.

Re examination of policy and practice often involves courts and lawyers and even lawmakers but it seems market forces are quicker. Only took a few days for big tech to act on the events of Jan. 6th.

seems like the suppression of conservative thought is an international issue .
Parler attracted senior members of the UK government before it shut down, according to reports (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/parler-attracted-senior-members-of-the-uk-government-before-it-shut-down-according-to-reports/ar-BB1cPjdD)

I have been unsuccessful at opening Parler's web site until today. Today I got this message .....
Now seems like the right time to remind you all — both lovers and haters — why we started this platform. We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media. Our aim has always been to provide a nonpartisan public square where individuals can enjoy and exercise their rights to both.
We will resolve any challenge before us and plan to welcome all of you back soon. We will not let civil discourse perish!

Parler Status Updates (https://parler.com/)

What America refers to as conservative and what the UK does are very different things...
I wouldn't place too much credence on this "report", after all many people joined Parler after 6th Jan to see what utterances Mr Orange was going to make next.

Interesting that they classed themselves as nonpartisan.

Parlar is about the money and nothing wrong with that, but the real issue is the policy of those they depend on to do business, and they have a right to a day in court. I don't buy the right to make money without responsibility for those unintended consequences though.

I ain't buying Toms conservative discrimination views either simply because conservative numbers depend on embracing their loony fringe brethren, and maybe not vocally, but silently, and must acknowledge the same liberal dilemma with the left and it's fringers. To be fair though conservatives (And liberals) do condemn violence and criminality as they seek distance and difference from the fringes, though neither side wants to admit it enough.

Unfortunately loonies on both sides are part of the public citizenry, free to shout and holler and gratefully are subject to the same laws everybody is. At least in theory. Obviously there is big money in marketing loony stuff. Who can resist?

Unfortunately loonies on both sides are part of the public citizenry, free to shout and holler and gratefully are subject to the same laws everybody is. At least in theory. Obviously there is big money in marketing loony stuff. Who can resist?

Tal even here you would be considered conservative, you would not have embraced the left end of our politics, they are union controlled or more green than grass wanting to ban everything. Our conservatives maintain a public health system, keep taxes low, balance budgets now and again, have a wholistic approach to covid and would be considered leftist in the US

I ain't buying Toms conservative discrimination views


First use the fake news to sell to the country that White Supremist terrorism is the # one threat to the nation .Then conflate with a broad brush conservatives with white supremacism
Finally use censorship, boycotts and public shaming to punish any conservative thought . I already detailed how big tech is playing that card .
Now they want to ban books too .

https://www.lacortenews.com/n/hundreds-of-writers-and-agents-sign-letter-demanding-publishing-industry-ban-books-by-trump-admin

First use the fake news to sell to the country that White Supremist terrorism is the # one threat to the nation .Then conflate with a broad brush conservatives with white supremacism
Finally use censorship, boycotts and public shaming to punish any conservative thought . I already detailed how big tech is playing that card .Yep. That's been the game plan. Accuse conservatives of villainy, and then take away their ability to defend themselves. Online conservative news outlets and evangelical churches will be in the spotlight next.

Nice spin, but isn't that the free marketers putting the whammy on the dufus? I don't think it has anything to do with quashing "conservatives". Or maybe conservatives need a better spokesman than the dufus.

Born and raised Republican,
I sure don't know what's going on!
For certain, an overarching greed
That encourages unnecessary need --
Opportunists pretend to be protesters,
Leaving on society a huge wound that festers.
Will Biden reframe our deadly dance?
Let's at least give him a chance!

74 million may not agree, but 80 million are hopeful....and relieved.

Born and raised Republican,
I sure don't know what's going on!
For certain, an overarching greed
That encourages unnecessary need --You mean like former democrat pols such as Jane Harmon (worth 500 mil), John Kerry (250 mil), Al Gore (300 mil), Jon Corzine (350 mil), Maria Shriver (200 mil), Hillary Clinton (120 mil), and Nancy Pelosi (120 mil)?

And that doesn't include Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, and George Soros. And then consider that forty-one out of the fifty wealthiest congressional districts are represented by Democrats.


Opportunists pretend to be protesters,
Leaving on society a huge wound that festers.Funny how, when BLM protests caused 2 bil in damages and 30 deaths, and led to over 2,000 injured cops, that you could only protest the ONE conservative protest that turned violent.


Will Biden reframe our deadly dance?
Let's at least give him a chance!I wonder if the three amigos said the same thing about Trump four years ago?

You mean like former democrat pols such as Jane Harmon (worth 500 mil), John Kerry (250 mil), Al Gore (300 mil), Jon Corzine (350 mil), Maria Shriver (200 mil), Hillary Clinton (120 mil), and Nancy Pelosi (120 mil)?

And that doesn't include Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, and George Soros. And then consider that forty-one out of the fifty wealthiest congressional districts are represented by Democrats.

Why is that and why can't repubs make their congressional districts wealthy? Incompetence?


Funny how, when BLM protests caused 2 bil in damages and 30 deaths, and led to over 2,000 injured cops, that you could only protest the ONE conservative protest that turned violent.

I wonder if the three amigos said the same thing about Trump four years ago?

A simple case of conflation and lies since it's YOU that cannot tell the difference between peaceful protestors and criminals. Very different from the dems going after rioters and criminals and not peaceful conservatives who didn't break the law.

Obviously you cannot fathom the difference, and probably never will. Really a sad case that leads to confusion between reality and BS. (Is the term BS an offensive booty reference too?).

Nice spin, but isn't that the free marketers putting the whammy on the dufus? nope it is monopolistic practices by denying access to the market .

Now cable news is getting in the act with CNN trying to deny Newsmax a platform.
"These companies have freedom of speech, but I'm not sure we need Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and such bringing them into tens of millions of homes."

How to cover the information crisis — and curb it (cnn.com) (https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/01/17/how-to-cover-the-information-crisis--and-curb-it.cnn/video/playlists/reliable-sources-highlights/)

I was upset when Airhead America Radio went down. But they went down because they could not compete in the arena of ideas . No conservative was pushing to get them off air . In fact I really enjoyed content like the stuff Randi Rhodes ,Rachel Madcow ,Lionel ,Ron Reagan and Thom Hartmann brought to the table. It enriches the debate . The left only wants to stifle it .

It's what you do when you cannot win honest debate. You simply try to silence the other side. Not gonna work.

I wonder if the three amigos said the same thing about Trump four years ago?
I was all for a successful businessman taking hold and improving our lives vs. the same old-same old politics.

nope it is monopolistic practices by denying access to the market .

Now cable news is getting in the act with CNN trying to deny Newsmax a platform.
"These companies have freedom of speech, but I'm not sure we need Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and such bringing them into tens of millions of homes."

How to cover the information crisis — and curb it (cnn.com) (https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/01/17/how-to-cover-the-information-crisis--and-curb-it.cnn/video/playlists/reliable-sources-highlights/)

CNN Pushes to Close Down Newsmax TV | Newsmax.com (https://www.newsmax.com/us/cnn-cancel-culture-big-tech-censorship/2021/01/17/id/1006021/)

Let 'em fight it out.


I was upset when Airhead America Radio went down. But they went down because they could not compete in the arena of ideas . No conservative was pushing to get them off air . In fact I really enjoyed content like the stuff Randi Rhodes ,Rachel Madcow ,Lionel ,Ron Reagan and Thom Hartmann brought to the table. It enriches the debate . The left only wants to stifle it .

Was it the left stifling progressive radio, or market forces and lousy management? Many of the above are still around, and the branding was purchased after bankruptcy. You know NORMAL business.

Air America (radio network) - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(radio_network))


The company eventually changed its name from Air America Radio to Air America Media and lastly to just Air America, an effort to establish itself as a broadcaster on multiple media sources including television and the Internet, and one not merely relegated to radio. Always primarily a radio network, on January 21, 2010, Air America went off the air citing difficulties with the current economic environment. It filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_7,_Title_11,_United_States_Code) and liquidated itself. Bennett Zier was the company's last CEO including through the bankruptcy and liquidation.
Sometime after the network's closure, Newsweb Corporation (owned by Chicago entrepreneur, political activist, and philanthropist Fred Eychaner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Eychaner) and owner of Chicago's WCPT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCPT_(AM)) progressive talk radio station) acquired ownership of the branding.

I was all for a successful businessman taking hold and improving our lives vs. the same old-same old politics Nice to see you admit that Trump was a successful businessman.

Nice to see you admit that Trump was a successful businessman.
Was for a short time....

I figured you wouldn't be able to stand it.

I figured you wouldn't be able to stand it.
Where to begin, where to begin to list the failures....

What really bothered me was his mimicking during the campaign of the disabled reporter and his disrespect toward the Gold Star parents.

Where to begin, where to begin to list the failures....

What really bothered me was his mimicking during the campaign of the disabled reporter and his disrespect toward the Gold Star parents.

His basic cruelty may be joined by new insights into his business practices through state investigations. We know he lies a lot, and maybe we should see if he is indeed a good business guy through legit means.

Seems we should have answered that question definitively 4 years ago. Even repubs didn't like him back then.

Where to begin, where to begin to list the failures....Record low unemployment? Solid economic growth? Moving our embassy to Jerusalem? Appointing quality SCOTUS justices? Drawing down our troop deployments overseas? Not starting any new wars? Keeping a rein on Iran and N. Korea? 7 million new jobs? Great increase in manufacturing jobs? The number of people claiming unemployment insurance as a share of the population hitting its lowest on record? Income inequality falling for two straight years, and by the largest amount in over a decade? The bottom 50 percent of American households seeing a 40 percent increase in net worth? 16% increase in pay for low income workers? Greatest GDP in one quarter ever recorded?

Are those the failures you are referring to?

Are those the failures you are referring to?
There isn't enough room here to post his failures.

There isn't enough room here to post his failures.OK with me.

Was it the left stifling progressive radio, or market forces and lousy management? They couldn't compete in the market of ideas . That is not the case with Newsmax. Their ratings and market share grows daily . That is the reason why CNN wants to deny them a platform

as to your question about the market place ; this is what Parler has to do since they are denied by the cartel any access to the market place .
First it would have to create their own Amazon Web service to host their site .
Then they would have to build their own Google like search site for people to find it . Then build their own phone company for people to download their app. Only after those 3 operations are up and running could they begin to compete with Twitter . and that assumes you can use existing infrastructure like satellite transmission services and optic cable .

on the black list front .... John Eastman ,a lawyer who both represented Trump in his legal challenges to the election, as well as gave a public speech in support of Trump at the rally "retired " from Chapman University after 169 faculty members pressured U President Daniele Struppa to fire him for exercising his free speech .

Struppa wrote in a statement Jan 8 that Eastman having “a role in the tragic events in Washington, D.C., that jeopardized our democracy. … Eastman’s actions are in direct opposition to the values and beliefs of our institution. He has now put Chapman in the position of being publicly disparaged for the actions of a single faculty member, and for what many call my failure to punish and fire him”.

Struppa who did not want to fire Eastman bowed to the pressure .

.................................................. .................................................. ......


Without warning the marketing heads of the corporation that manages the radio stations that air the conservative Robert Pratt on Texas radio show for the past fifteen years announced they were cancelling the program, despite its profitable status and high ratings.

McCarthyism at work again. No doubt the tolerant liberal dems will rise up against this persecution.

After 4 long years of the dufus insidious lies BS and antics it's no wonder big biz wants to clean house and get about making money under new management which has officially turned the page by will of the people.

Fringers just need to figure it out without the steady diet of red meat from the defeated deposed dufus.

Josh Hawley is the next on the cancel culture hit list . He dared question some election irregularities in the halls of the Senate . He asked for some investigations before the vote was certified . For that heinous crime he is now a marked man .

Simone and Shuster has cancelled a book deal with him .Ironically Hawley ,a former prosecutor's book is an expose on hi tech . In ' The Tyranny of Big Tech';he argues that these hi tech monopolies threatens our republican form of government .

Before Simon & Schuster’s announcement, Hawley had denounced the violence of Jan 6 . Too late . the publisher had already prejudged Hawley and found him guilty .

But that is not all . Loews corp ;a hotel management company has decided to cancel a planned fundraising event for the senator. In a statement the company said "We are horrified and opposed to the events at the Capitol and all who supported and incited the actions. In light of those events and for the safety of our guests and team members, we have informed the host of the Feb. fundraiser that it will no longer be held at Loews Hotels".

Simply raising questions about vote irregularities is now an act of violence and insurrection

Simply raising questions about vote irregularities is now an act of violence and insurrection

Hawley did a lot more than that, and you know damn well that he did.

He was the first senator to loudly proclaim that Trump's nonsense theory of having the election stolen was promoted by him.

On the day when the electoral votes were tallied and Hawley filed his objections, a mob motivated by the belief that the 2020 election was stolen stormed the United States Capitol.

Hawley helped popularize and legitimize the conspiracy theory that motivated the mob. Pols from both sides of the aisle alleged that he bore moral responsibility for the storming of the Capitol and the five deaths it caused.

They argued that Hawley should resign or be expelled from the Senate.

Tom, why do you continue with your lies and half-truths? Your Repubs can't get away with it anymore. There's just way too much true info out there - mass media and the huge library that we call the Internet. Your once-proud party is becoming swamped by the fringe far-right.

Simply raising questions about vote irregularities is now an act of violence and insurrectionThey should tread carefully. Sow the wind, reap a whirlwind.

Hawley did a lot more than that, and you know damn well that he did.

He was the first senator to loudly proclaim that Trump's nonsense theory of having the election stolen was promoted by him.

On the day when the electoral votes were tallied and Hawley filed his objections, a mob motivated by the belief that the 2020 election was stolen stormed the United States Capitol.

Hawley raised questions in the format prescribed by the laws of the United States about the way elections were conducted in the state of Pennsylvania, just as Democrats did about other states in 01, 05, and 17.

Hawley helped popularize and legitimize the conspiracy theory that motivated the mob. Pols from both sides of the aisle alleged that he bore moral responsibility for the storming of the Capitol and the five deaths it caused.

They argued that Hawley should resign or be expelled from the Senate.

Tom, why do you continue with your lies and half-truths? Your Repubs can't get away with it anymore. There's just way too much true info out there - mass media and the huge library that we call the Internet. Your once-proud party is becoming swamped by the fringe far-right.

I really don't care what "pols from both sides of the aisle " think ;nor what you think .

You are a patient man, Tom.

I really don't care what "pols from both sides of the aisle " think ;nor what you think .

Tom, that's been obvious ever since you showed up here. You forgot to add that you also don't care what the truth is. The truth shall set you free tom, from that prison you've locked yourself into.

The truth shall set you free tom, from that prison you've locked yourself into.When do the violins start playing?

Funny how after two months of hollering foul about the elections, the evidence points to the fairest, most participated election in recent history. Those who believe otherwise seem to be outvoted and a minority...and LIED to. Mr. Hawley seems to be one of those doing the lying, or repeating the lies of the ex liar in chief. Contrary to popular RW fringer belief and orthodoxy lies have consequences, as does defending those liars.

Hawley argued that Congress should "investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt measures to secure the integrity of our elections. But Congress has so far failed to act."
He did not make any of the suggestions that the President's team was making .

Sen . D+ck Durbin denounced Hawley's objection saying he was howling at the moon . But in 2017 this is what Durbin said about Boxer's objections to Trump electors .....
"I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States,"

Sen. Chris Van Hollen made a similar comment about Boxer's objections .....

"I believe that Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, have performed a very valuable public service in bringing this debate before the Congress. As Americans, we should all be troubled by reports of voting problems in many parts of the country,"

Of Howley's objection he said .
He’s attempting to undermine our democratic process...and his objections were a reckless stunt .

But evidently Boxer's wasn't a reckless stunt . It was in fact a legitimate part of the process .

Now was Boxer LYING; was Durbin LYING ,was Hollen LYING ????

You guys throw that lie word around way too much . It is an easy smear for you to use . It takes no effort on your part to write that 3 letter word .

You guys throw that lie word around way too much . It is an easy smear for you to use . It takes no effort on your part to write that 3 letter word .That's a good point. I've been guilty of it myself. It is much easier to write three letters than it is to produce contrary evidence. Simply saying, "Oh, those republicans are just lying. After all, an election won by a dem just had to have been done legally," hardly proves anything.

I will say again. This business of allowing whoever to mail in a ballot is a terrible idea. We need to go back to having people go to the trouble of getting off their rear end and going to a polling place to vote. You know, like we do with liquor stores, Walmart, ballgames, and other vital activities. Expand the time of voting to two days if need be to mitigate long lines. Require a picture ID like we do with the purchasing of liquor or tobacco.

Did the dems objections result in a howling mob storming the capital? In truth we probably have these objections and stunts every four years during the certification process, but behind closed doors between the house and senate members. What makes this election so different is the dufus lies and his sycophants repeating the lies.

I mean if 60 judges, some dufus appointees, throw his lies out of court why do you fringers still believe them and act on them?

That's pretty crazy. When crazy crosses a line there are consequences...169 pro-Trump rioters have been charged in the Capitol insurrection so far. This searchable table shows them all. (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/169-pro-trump-rioters-have-been-charged-in-the-capitol-insurrection-so-far-this-searchable-table-shows-them-all/ar-BB1cC9lW?ocid=msedgntp)...I don't care about left or right when it comes to loony CRIMINAL behavior. Nor should any sane person.

I will say again. This business of allowing whoever to mail in a ballot is a terrible idea. We need to go back to having people go to the trouble of getting off their rear end and going to a polling place to vote. You know, like we do with liquor stores, Walmart, ballgames, and other vital activities. Expand the time of voting to two days if need be to mitigate long lines. Require a picture ID like we do with the purchasing of liquor or tobacco.
What if each registered voter gets an application to vote by mail (if that's the preference). The application demands a photocopy of a current ID (state, driver's license, college, gun registration), last four digits of the SS#, and the voter's signature. All that information is on file at the election office and will be checked against the mailed-in application.

What if each registered voter gets an application to vote by mail (if that's the preference). The application demands a photocopy of a current ID (state, driver's license, college, gun registration), last four digits of the SS#, and the voter's signature. All that information is on file at the election office and will be checked against the mailed-in application.How does all of that information get on file at the election office?

How does all of that information get on file at the election office?
The voter has to personally bring it in and have it approved sometime during the year.

The same information must be produced when voting in person for the first time.

What if each registered voter gets an application to vote by mail (if that's the preference). The application demands a photocopy of a current ID (state, driver's license, college, gun registration), last four digits of the SS#, and the voter's signature. All that information is on file at the election office and will be checked against the mailed-in application.

We can't let a small thing like facts get in the way of fringer thinking now can we? I posted a link before about voter registration with each states requirements but reading and comprehension is not the strong suit of some people, or they rather just make up stuff, twist the truth, or just plain LIE.

Take your pick.

The voter has to personally bring it in and have it approved sometime during the year.If they can do that, then why can't they go vote? I'm not talking about legit absentee ballots. My wife and I voted absentee this year for the first time ever. Our first granddaughter was due in early November, but we had to get off our rear ends, go to the courthouse, present a pic ID, and basically go through what everyone else at the polling places had to go through. It must first and foremost be secure, reliable, and not open to accusations of fraud.

Plenty of accusations from this last election, but no EVIDENCE of fraud. That's not just from the dems, but repubs too. More of those pesky FACTS.

If they can do that, then why can't they go vote?
I did when I could still walk. Covid has also changed the scene of voting in person.

Your situation is understandable and has never been in question. Covid will someday be a bad memory, probably within the next several months. But Covid did not prevent people from going to liquor stores or political demonstrations. It is just being used as a convenient excuse.

I'll never understand why conservatives and repubs feel so threatened by mail in voting when there is no evidence of fraud. What do you call accusations with no evidence?

BASELESS!

I suppose though that after years of making voting harder for some they repubs can't help themselves.


Your situation is understandable and has never been in question. Covid will someday be a bad memory, probably within the next several months. But Covid did not prevent people from going to liquor stores or political demonstrations. It is just being used as a convenient excuse.

Despite the "EXCUSES" long lines were still in evidence everywhere. No evidence of fraud there either despite the claims.

You guys throw that lie word around way too much ..... It takes no effort on your part to write that 3 letter word .

You guys sure make it easy to do so.

tal for me it is simple . I want my ballot private . Despite the bs assurances about 2nd secret envelopes that are separated from the envelopes that carry the signature ;I don't believe poll counters are not comparing ballots with who sent them especially in districts where video evidence shows that counters are sent home while counting proceeds .

There is no conclusive proof that significant fraud did not occur . Enough to change the outcome ? Maybe ;maybe not .

The only place a Senator could address the concerns of their constituents is when the certification process occurred . Hawley knowing that, did the will of the people as he saw it and raised objections during the count . If you see that as incitement then that is your problem.

But Covid did not prevent people from going to liquor stores or political demonstrations. It is just being used as a convenient excuse.
And those are our trusted voters....

Oh well..

Judge denies Parler an injunction to force AWS to host the antisocial network for internet outcasts
https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/21/parler_aws_injunction/ (Judge denies Parler an injunction to force AWS to host the antisocial network for internet outcasts)

antisocial network for internet outcastsThank goodness you have an unbiased outlook on the matter. This is exactly the kind of approach used by those who want to squelch free speech. "Yes, Parler ended up out of business, having been squelched by big tech, but it's no real concern since they didn't agree with me anyway."

appeal and appeal again . This case has to be decided by SOTUS .

appeal and appeal again . This case has to be decided by SOTUS .
I very much doubt it.
AWS' (Amazon's) Terms of Service are particularly strict.


Thank goodness you have an unbiased outlook on the matter. This is exactly the kind of approach used by those who want to squelch free speech. "Yes, Parler ended up out of business, having been squelched by big tech, but it's no real concern since they didn't agree with me anyway."
That was a quote from the irreverent UK tech paper I linked to, not mine.

Free speech is not unfettered as it has limits defined by not shouting fire in a crowded theater, and it's been long held that commerce can seek it's own contracts and terms. If a Parlar cannot meet those terms then good luck in the courts, or with any other options they deem viable. That's the problem with the court of public opinion sometimes as it may not comport with the law which is the final arbiter of resolution.

Seems a simple enough case of complying with the contract that before current events was not enforced too closely. It is now.

Free speech is not unfettered as it has limits defined by not shouting fire in a crowded theater

Good and necessary point. So many do not understand the simple concept of free speech.

Urging insurrection in front of thousands in front of the WH and urging the thousands to march on the Capitol is NOT free speech. Yet, there are some here who defend Trump doing this very thing under the guise of free speech.

Urging insurrection in front of thousands in front of the WH and urging the thousands to march on the Capitol is NOT free speech. Yet, there are some here who defend Trump doing this very thing under the guise of free speech.Defending Trump is easy in this case. It never happened.

Good and necessary point. So many do not understand the simple concept of free speech.

Urging insurrection in front of thousands in front of the WH and urging the thousands to march on the Capitol is NOT free speech. Yet, there are some here who defend Trump doing this very thing under the guise of free speech.

They have been steadily claiming the dufus made me do it! Here's an interesting poll that helps you figure out where you stand against other Americans.

Vast majority of Americans hold Trump responsible for Capitol siege: poll - Business Insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/vast-majority-of-americans-hold-trump-responsible-capitol-siege-poll-2021-1)

As we can see those still SD (Shoulder Deep), are in the minority.

the purge moves to Capitol Hill . Rep Stephanie Murphy has introduced legislation that would ban any person from federal employment or military service who might have attended any protest rally that claimed the election was stolen, or even suggested that there was voter fraud.( titled the Security Clearance Improvement Act of 2021).

Anyone who is convicted of having breached the Capitol building on January 6th and committing acts of vandalism or attacks on law enforcement officers should be disqualified from obtaining a security clearance. But this bill would effectively criminalize every person who showed up for the rally and remained out in the streets protesting. The same would go for the hundreds of other rallies held across the nation in the preceding months.

.................................................. ..................................

Colleen Oefelein, an associate literary agent with the New York City-based Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency, was sacked after her boss learned that she owned accounts on Gab and Parler. The agency’s owner, Jennifer DeChiara, publicly announced on Twitter that the firm had dropped Oefelein after making the “distressing” discovery. She was not sacked for anything she posted on those sites . She only had to be registered on the sites as a pretext for getting canned .

Security Clearance Improvement Act of 2021Hard to imagine how that would pass inspection by the courts.

As to the rest, every freedom loving American should be concerned. Guilt by association can cut in many different directions.

the purge moves to Capitol Hill . Rep Stephanie Murphy has introduced legislation that would ban any person from federal employment or military service who might have attended any protest rally that claimed the election was stolen, or even suggested that there was voter fraud.( titled the Security Clearance Improvement Act of 2021).

Anyone who is convicted of having breached the Capitol building on January 6th and committing acts of vandalism or attacks on law enforcement officers should be disqualified from obtaining a security clearance. But this bill would effectively criminalize every person who showed up for the rally and remained out in the streets protesting. The same would go for the hundreds of other rallies held across the nation in the preceding months.

summary_of_security_clearance_improvement_act_of_2 021_rep._stephanie_murphy.pdf (house.gov) (https://murphy.house.gov/uploadedfiles/summary_of_security_clearance_improvement_act_of_2 021_rep._stephanie_murphy.pdf)

Not criminalize Tom, that's your word but rather tighten up the security clearance process.

.................................................. ..................................


Colleen Oefelein, an associate literary agent with the New York City-based Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency, was sacked after her boss learned that she owned accounts on Gab and Parler. The agency’s owner, Jennifer DeChiara, publicly announced on Twitter that the firm had dropped Oefelein after making the “distressing” discovery. She was not sacked for anything she posted on those sites . She only had to be registered on the sites as a pretext for getting canned .

If you have more on this story I would be interested because I could find nothing to justify this firing other than businesses running from these sites.

Literary Agency Fires Employee for Using Parler, Gab (yahoo.com) (https://news.yahoo.com/literary-agency-fires-employee-using-171202099.html)

Laws vary . Alaska gives employers more discretion than others but the terms of employment need to be specific ie employee handbook has to state that employee membership to Parler is prohibited . Also the agency operates out of NY .So not sure which state's laws apply.

But having a social media membership is enough to get canned ? Suppose my boss canned me for being a member of NRA ? Or maybe a conservative boss cans someone for having a Twitter account ?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EssitQGUwAEXTGj?format=jpg&name=900x900

Jennifer DeChiara, - Twitter Search / Twitter (https://twitter.com/QuantumGrl/status/1354218349928955907/photo/1)

"We apologize to anyone who has been affected or offended by this." So now simply being "offended" is a major problem? Incredible. I will assume that being "offended" by someone's membership on Facebook or Twitter would not qualify as a grounds for termination.

Facebook and twitter have been cracking down as many of the social platforms have.

I just don't buy she was fired because she is a conservative Christian though. That's disturbing on many levels. More info need.

I did not say she was fired because she was a Christian or conservative .The facts are that her boss said she was fired because she used Parler and Gab ;two sites that many conservatives went to when Twitter began suspending conservatives . What Facebook does has no bearing . She was not kicked out of Twitter and her posts on Twitter were mostly job related ;non-political . Her boss started getting pressure from the intolerant cancel culture left and decided to fire her rather than face boycotts . There .....answered your question about motives .

If De Chiara's motive was that Colleen was a Christian then there would be a clear 1st amendment violation . I did not even say that the boss should face any action because of her decision. I was just pointing out in that and other examples on this thred that the left is in active purge of conservative thought mode.

She said it herself.

Agent Fired from Literary Agency for Using Parler and Gab (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/agent-fired-from-literary-agency-for-using-parler-and-gab/ar-BB1d7trr)

"Well thanks Twitter and @JDLitAgency," Oefelein wrote. "I just got fired because I'm a Christian and a conservative."

and ? I take the word of the person who actually fired her .

Trust but verify...good enough for Reagan!

if the person who took the action ,who is the founder of the agency ,publicly states why she did it, that pretty much verifies the story.

The cancel culture arrived this week at San Francisco. The city's school board decided to remove the names of George Washington ,Abraham Lincoln ,Paul Revere ,and other names of historical American leaders from 44 schools .

Lincoln who freed slaves was on the hit list because native Americans were mistreated during his term . Both Roosevelt Presidents made the hit list . Even down town Willie Brown was cancelled ( “responsible for much of the gentrification” in the city during his tenure. )

And what was Paul Revere's big offense ? You remember Paul Revere ,the colonial patriot who as a member of the Sons of Liberty made a midnight ride to alert the colonials that the Brits were on the march.
That don't matter . Paul made the egregious error of being a Lt Colonel in the colonial marines that took part in an expedition to recover Penobscot Bay Maine that had been lost to the Brits . The expedition was a disaster with the Americans losing all but one of 44 ships sent . It was America's worse naval loss before Pearl Harbor . Revere was put under house arrest and court-martialed on charges of cowardice and incompetence during the expedition. He was eventually exonerated . But that incident does not negate Revere's service to the country . But the board incorrectly assumed that this defeat was somehow tied to the conquest of the Penobscot Indians ;which of course is pure fiction nonsense .

The board did not consult historians while making these decisions . They relied on Wiki entries and tv shows .

OH yeah to make this bipartisan they also cancelled Dianne Feinstein . She repeatedly order the reinstalling of the Confederate flag outside city Hall when she was mayor . She also helped in the destruction of the Pilipino community through mass eviction . Well maybe this one is justified

Gotta hand it to those liberal dems. They sure know how to move things forward.


The city's board of electionsDid you mean Board of Education?

The list also included naturalist John Muir, Spanish priest Junipero Serra, and Francis Scott Key, composer of the “Star Spangled Banner".

The city's board of elections


Did you mean Board of Education?

yup gotta remember to finish my coffee before posting

New term for Americans. "Coffee error", defined as a justifiable and understandable error due to not having had our morning jolt of caffeine.

Gotta love snowflakes from both sides...
Interesting about getting fired for using a couple of sites.
I know the US has "at will" employment, but this is really taken things that step too far.
There's clearly more to this then just the report, bringing their employee into disrepute would be a starter.

Roll on the Thought Police, 1984 has nowt on this mess.

Any idea how Parler's claim against AWS is going ?

last I heard was that a Seattle judge rejected an injunction . No surprise there . I imagine there will be appeals .

Any idea how Parler's claim against AWS is going ?I don't think they've made much progress. One thing about it, though. If they get back on line, they will explode. It's hard to say how many new users would sign up after all that's gone on.

I don't think they've made much progress. One thing about it, though. If they get back on line, they will explode. It's hard to say how many new users would sign up after all that's gone on.

The longer they take the less relevant they become.
So much for a "bare metal" build, this is a classic DR scenario and should have been handled in a more timely manner.

I got on , There are limited messages from site owner and from conservative celebs Sean Hannity ,Mark Levin and Sen Rand Paul .

Parler Status Updates (https://parler.com/)

Meanwhile Congress is aiming to pile on .House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney asked the FBI to investigate Parler for a possible role as a 'facilitator ' in the Jan 6 riot in the Capitol .

House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney asked the FBI to investigate Parler for a possible role as a 'facilitator ' in the Jan 6 riot in the Capitol .There seems to be no end to the insanity. But if they want to press that, wouldn't Amazon have to be included? After all, it was their very own AWS that was hosting the Parler site.

Now on Netflix, well worth the watch, goes a long way to explain alot about how Social Media actually works.
/The Social Dilemma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaaC57tcci0

IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11464826/
Netflix: https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224

Well crud. We dropped Netflix months ago. Even at that, after watching documentaries like that one, you still don't know if you have seen the unvarnished truth since you don't hear the counter arguments. Frustrating.

Now on Netflix, well worth the watch, goes a long way to explain alot about how Social Media actually works.
/The Social Dilemma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaaC57tcci0

IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11464826/
Netflix: https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224

Is the problem the technology, or the people that use it or more specifically what it's used for? Is this the same as nuclear energy that can light cities being used to blow away humans? Anything in the irresponsible hands is dangerous.

Amazon says Jeff Bezos will step down as CEO.

As for the documentary ,I am not fond of that format . The whole thing could've been condensed . I'm a personal responsibility type of person. I take ownership of my actions . So no matter how much so called manipulation I am subject to ;my thoughts and actions are my own,

I'm a personal responsibility type of person. I take ownership of my actions

Hahahalolol - that's rich! You couldn't even take ownership when directly asked about your "socialism" infecting Democratic politics. You ran away unable to respond with specifics.

Tom, socialist? You are riding the wrong horse there athos

Tom, socialist? You are riding the wrong horse there athos

Read again. Tom is anti - without knowing why.

I take ownership of choosing to not answer your questions Deal with it .

Read again. Tom is anti - without knowing why.tom is anti what a strange idea

I take ownership of choosing to not answer your questions Deal with it .

There you go again - true to form, running away.

consider this conversation over .

Just mention the word "Aquinas".

consider this conversation over .

Lol - You already ended it when you couldn't answer A SIMPLE QUESTION about your "socialism" nonsense. If it makes you feel any better, your inability to answer is common among your fellow-travelers when confronted with THEIR "socialism" nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense this qualifies

Speaking of nonsense this qualifies

Couldn't agree more

In the meantime another defamation lawsuit against Faux News and dufus true believers.

Smartmatic's $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox News: Legal experts give their opinions - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/05/media/smartmatic-fox-news-reliable-sources/index.html)


"When you are making statements that are knowingly false, and you make them with malice, and you actually tarnish reputations and it has a financial consequence — that's why you have defamation lawsuits in the first place," Coates said, explaining the seriousness of the lawsuit.
Coates is not alone in believing Smartmatic's suit poses real threat to Fox. University of Georgia media law professor Jonathan Peters noted on Twitter (https://twitter.com/jonathanwpeters/status/1357486085853622274) that "libel law makes it difficult to prevail where the plaintiff is a public figure and/or where the speech involved a matter of public concern. In various ways, these will be key issues in litigation." But, Peters added that he believed the "smart money" is on Smartmatic.
That seemed to be the general consensus among legal experts who commented on the case Thursday. Despite Fox describing the suit as "meritless," Powell calling it a "political maneuver," and Giuliani saying he looked forward to discovery, most legal experts believed it to have some bite. "This lawsuit is a legitimate threat — a real threat," CNN legal analyst Ellie Honig said. "There is a real teeth to this." And Roy Gutterman, who directs the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, echoed to WaPo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/02/04/smartmatic-fox-lawsuit/), "This complaint establishes a compelling narrative in its 270-plus pages. It will certainly be interesting to see how the defendants frame their responses."

discovery

Discovery works both ways. Dobbs was fired from Faux, will the others be far behind? Regardless, I see a BIG settlement in their future.

You can now be punished for other people's absurd misinterpretations of your words including the following punishments .... social media ban, cancellation, boycott, loss of job........oh yeah and impeachment .

You can now be punished for other people's absurd misinterpretations of your words including the following punishments .... social media ban, cancellation, boycott, loss of job........oh yeah and impeachment .

The words were not "absurdly interpreted". They were plain as day needing no interpretation. What you call punishment is the right of an organization to manage its business.

The impeachment quote reflected an incitement to overthrow the government by not allowing Congress to perform its duly authorized business by murder and mayhem. Over 200 insurrectionists have now been arrested and charged. Do you consider that absurd?

Except, of course, that trump never said any such things. It just comes back to an absurd interpretation allied with extreme hatred. Maxine Waters said much worse with no complaints at all from liberal dems.

Trump tells Capitol rioters to ‘go home’ but repeatedly pushes false claim that election was stolen (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/trump-tells-capitol-rioters-to-go-home-now-but-still-calls-the-election-stolen.html)

When you blow a dog whistle the dogs will respond. Maybe you ain't a dog and can't hear the whistle but obviously the dogs heard it.....DUH!!

Trump tells Capitol rioters to ‘go home’ but repeatedly pushes false claim that election was stolen (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/trump-tells-capitol-rioters-to-go-home-now-but-still-calls-the-election-stolen.html)

When you blow a dog whistle the dogs will respond. Maybe you ain't a dog and can't hear the whistle but obviously the dogs heard it.....DUH!!

When people deny the obvious reality, it becomes increasingly difficult to break through the shield of what has become a cult. Accounts of the disaffected QANON followers supporting Trump are frighteningly similar to the Jim Jones tragedy years ago.

Accounts of the disaffected QANON followers supporting Trump are frighteningly similar to the Jim Jones tragedy years ago.
"Like clockwork, the once loud and abrasive pro-Trump rioters who stormed the capitol building just a few weeks ago are starting to lose some of their once strong convictions to the failed second-term president.

One participant in the insurrection, the virally pictured shirtless, horned man Jake Angelo, who was later identified and imprisoned after the riot, has now said that he would be willing to testify at Trump's impeachment trial after his hopes of being pardoned were slashed."
https://www.complex.com/life/horned-shirtless-man-capitol-riot-testify-impeachment-trial

All of this complaining about 1/6 would sound much more genuine if it hadn't been for the appalling silence when BLM, Antifa, and others were burning city blocks and federal buildings, and then occupying entire city blocks for weeks on end.

The simple truth is this. At no time did DT ever instruct or suggest that his supporters go out and try to take over the Capital Building. Case closed.

All of this complaining about 1/6 would sound much more genuine if it hadn't been for the appalling silence when BLM, Antifa, and others were burning city blocks and federal buildings, and then occupying entire city blocks for weeks on end.

The simple truth is this. At no time did DT ever instruct or suggest that his supporters go out and try to take over the Capital Building. Case closed.

no but he told them to fight so mixed messages

If there was a riot every time a pol told people to fight for their values, there’d be ten riots a day.

You do seem to have a lot of riots over there

Sadly true.

The simple truth is this. At no time did DT ever instruct or suggest that his supporters go out and try to take over the Capital Building. Case closed.

Simple it is, truth it's not.

How frikkin' blind can a person be when it comes to Trump's behavior? The video evidence, eyewitness evidence, the testimony of participants in the riot, senators and congressmen in imminent danger for their lives - all are overwhelming. How anyone can fail to see the truth is beyond belief.

It's very "frikkin" simple. If you have a quote where Trump instructed his followers to go and take over the Capitol Building, then post it. Otherwise, waste your breath on something else.

It's very "frikkin" simple. If you have a quote where Trump instructed his followers to go and take over the Capitol Building, then post it. Otherwise, waste your breath on something else.

Go turn your TV on - you'll find all the quotes your heart desires.

Which means, of course, that you don't have any. If you did, then you would post them. It's that "frikkin" simple.

Go turn your TV on - you'll find all the quotes your heart desires.
Here's one:

“Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election,” Trump, a Republican, tweeted on Dec. 20. “Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

They turned out in the thousands and heard the president urge them to march on the Capitol building to express their anger at the voting process and to pressure their elected officials to reject the results.

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and Congressmen and women,” Trump told the crowd, speaking with the White House as a backdrop.

“We will never give up, we will never concede,” Trump said, delighting the crowd by calling Democratic victories the product of what he called “explosions of bulls---.”

“Bulls---! Bulls---! Bulls---!” people chanted in reply.

Trump has sought for weeks to thwart a peaceful transfer of power, aided by groups such as "Stop the Steal," which promoted stopthesteal.us (https://stopthesteal.us/) the day's protest and peddled false claims about voter fraud on Facebook and other social media.

But Wednesday’s events were the culmination of his efforts to thwart a peaceful transfer. About 50 minutes into the speech, some of his supporters, waving Trump flags, began heading toward Capitol Hill, where unprecedented mayhem ensued.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-protests-idUSKBN29B24S

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and Congressmen and women,” Trump told the crowd, speaking with the White House as a backdrop.Oh my! "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and cheer!!" No wonder there was a riot.

(Sarcasm meter on overload.)

The question remains. "If you have a quote where Trump instructed his followers to go and take over the Capitol Building, then post it."

Oh my! "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and cheer!!" No wonder there was a riot.

(Sarcasm meter on overload.)

The question remains. "If you have a quote where Trump instructed his followers to go and take over the Capitol Building, then post it."

That's exactly the problem with your demand. You want to cherry pick a quote so you can be sarcastic about it. You're hardly seeking the truth. If you were, you would do what the rest of the world has been doing - watch the events on tv. You know that if you do, you won't have a leg to stand on.

Trump's behavior stretched from November 3 to the day of his gathering on January 6 when his supporters attempted to prevent Congress from carrying out their duty to count the ballots. Trump had been loudly claiming for months that the election was fixed and doing everything in his power to overturn it. Even to criminally trying to influence the secretary of state of Georgia to "find" votes to make him the winner - an act that is currently under review in Georgia to determine its criminality.

There is not a doubt in anyone's mind (including the Republican senators) who disagree that the rioters were marching to the capitol on behalf of Trump. Only the senator's lame reading of free speech and the Constitution will give them an out from convicting Trump for inciting the insurrection. Make no mistake about it - it was an insurrection, much more than a riot. They and Trump were responsible for the murders, suicides, other deaths, eyes gouged, fingers cut off, and a hundred other injuries.

There has been nothing like it in American history. The senators who will vote to acquit will have sold their souls for a price. Their oath means nothing.

So it's not a matter of a quote here and there. It's an entire pattern of behavior lasting for months since the election. Are you up to examining that pattern? Then read on.

If you are disturbed by anything I've written here, and I hope you are, then watch the impeachment trial tomorrow. There will be all the evidence you need and that you have been asking for. Then come back tomorrow and tell us what you think.

That's exactly the problem with your demand. You want to cherry pick a quote so you can be sarcastic about it. You're hardly seeking the truth. If you were, you would do what the rest of the world has been doing - watch the events on tv. You know that if you do, you won't have a leg to stand on.I ask for evidence. You reply that I should watch TV. Try that in any court of law and see how long they laugh at you. A simple admission that Trump never called for insurrection or riots would be suitable here. Hatred is not evidence. The man has a big mouth, but that is not a cause for impeachment.


There is not a doubt in anyone's mind (including the Republican senators) who disagree that the rioters were marching to the capitol on behalf of Trump.Do I believe that you have some sort of special knowledge about what everyone does or does not believe? No.


Only their lame reading of free speech and the Constitution will give them an out from convicting Trump for inciting the insurrection.That and the inconvenient (for you) fact that Trump never actually called for violence or insurrection gives them, not an out, but an obligation to point out that this is nothing more than a second Democrat party kangaroo court. It is driven by an irrational hatred of a man who is not even in office, and is purely a political vendetta.

I ask for evidence. You reply that I should watch TV. Try that in any court of law and see how long they laugh at you. A simple admission that Trump never called for insurrection or riots would be suitable here. Hatred is not evidence. The man has a big mouth, but that is not a cause for impeachment.

This is not a court of law. It's an internet Q&A site. You want answers, I've shown you where to get them. If you refuse to watch the impeachment hearing for your answers, then don't come back here b**ching and whining because no one here will give you a quote you want. You've now been given more than you ever asked for. All it takes is spending time watching history being made.

You want answers, I've shown you where to get them.I asked you for a quote that could be used for evidence. You don't have one, and it makes you angry. All you seem to have is the same irrational hatred of DT that Pelosi has. If Trump called for insurrection, then post the quote where he did. Otherwise, just admit you don't have it.

I asked you for a quote that could be used for evidence. You don't have one, and it makes you angry. All you seem to have is the same irrational hatred of DT that Pelosi has. If Trump called for insurrection, then post the quote where he did. Otherwise, just admit you don't have it.

Geez, you're impossible. To repeat ___

So it's not a matter of a quote here and there. It's an entire pattern of behavior lasting for months since the election. Are you up to examining that pattern?

Yes it was absurd misinterpretation (and that is being generous ) . I saw some great cherry picking during the Dem's prosecution spliced and manufactured video.(very professionally done video ..... too good for a bunch of Congressional geeks to make . The footage was much higher quality than what we have seen even from the compliant press....Goebbels would've been proud ) .Never once did they show the relevant quote where Trump told his supporters to peacefully march to the Capitol to support the Republicans who were doing constitutional challenges of the electors . Somehow that did not make it into the video presentation .

BTW . The lawyers Trump hired to defend him suck . He should've asked Dershowitz to defend him again. As an example ;the assault on the Capitol began almost a half hour before Trump ever mentioned going to the Capitol building . I would think his lawyers would know that .

When Schmucky stood in front of the Supreme Court when it was in session and yelled to the mob gathered outside the court "“Hey, Gorsuch. Hey, Kavanaugh. You have unleashed a whirlwind and you are going to pay the price” was that incitement to insurrection ? When James Comey said “The Republican Party needs to be burned down. It is just not a healthy political organization” was that not incitement to insurrection ?

As 'j' has already commented . Lawmakers frequently make inflammatory comments . Many were made supporting riots in the last year and urging more of the same . Many were made when the Federal Court House in Portland was under siege . Is the Supreme Court building and Federal Court Houses not as "sacred " as the Capitol building ?

Reckless rhetoric is a problem with out leaders . Why is only Trump singled out for punishment ? Democrats who condemn Trump for using strong language and equate it with incitement, despite having their own record of inflammatory rhetoric are throwing stones in glass houses.

All the evidence being gathered by prosecutors suggest that the riot was pre-planned .

Capitol Attack Was Planned Openly Online For Weeks—Police Still Weren’t Ready (forbes.com) (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/01/07/capitol-attack-was-planned-openly-online-for-weeks-police-still-werent-ready/?sh=28609d4176e2)

If so then that belies the charge that inflammatory rhetoric at the rally caused the riot . Still accusations of incitement are becoming the establishment’s tool of choice to justify new censorship.

It's not a matter of a quote here and there because you don't have a quote here and there. You don't have anything other than a meaningless plea to listen to television and examine a pattern of behavior. But if it's a pattern of behavior, then it's a pattern of speech, and speech can be quoted. So you end up back where we started.

Your reasoning basically just comes down to saying that DT is guilty because you say he is. Evidence is not needed. All that is needed is just some vacuous allegation that there is a mysterious pattern of behavior out there that amounts to a crime. I hope our system of justice is not heading in that direction.

Since you like watching TV so much, here is something for your consideration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3CRu4ilvPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kndq8izA5hc

Why is John Roberts not sitting there to preside over the impeachment trial? That's a Constitutional requirement. Why is it not being followed?

Why is only Trump singled out for punishment ?

Because as president of the United States he incited his armed supporters to march on the Capitol while Congress was in session and demand they overturn the presidential election on November 3 so Trump could remain in power. They failed but not before they caused the deaths of 5 people and hundreds injured defending Congress. Is that enough for you?

For you and your hopeless echo who require quotes, you're like the guy who wakes up in the morning, sees snow on the ground, and demands someone first say there's snow on the ground before he believes the evidence of his eyes.

Because as president of the United States he incited his armed supporters to march on the Capitol while Congress was in session and demand they overturn the presidential election on November 3 so Trump could remain in power.Except, of course, that he didn't. Kind of important to remember.


before he believes the evidence of his eyes.There's that little word again. "Evidence". It's what you don't have. Come up with some, and then come back and talk about it. You saying it happened is not evidence.

Found this on another site concerning the Chief Justice's absence.

"Another part of the Constitution says the Chief Justice SHALL preside at any impeachment trial of a President. That Roberts has declined to do so is because Trump no longer is President and cannot be removed from an office he doesn’t hold. This, to me, necessarily implies that Roberts believes the Impeachment remedies are no longer available after a term of office expires."

makes sense, this is political theatre

this is political theatreJust about right.

makes sense, this is political theatre
Like January 6th (and 2016-2020).

and 2016-2020If you are referring to the many riots "sponsored" by BLM, Antifa, and others, then I agree with you. Riots, I might add, which were greeted by approving silence by the leaders of the dem party. That would include the Antifa occupation zone in Portland which has gone on for months and, so far as I can find out, is STILL ongoing.

Hello fringers and trolls. Plenty of evidence presented today, if you bothered to watch.

evidence, evidence of what, some misguided fools

Always claims of evidence except they seem unable to post any. Proving that things happened on 1/6 is a long ways from demonstrating that Trump was responsible for it.

Always claims of evidence except they seem unable to post any. Proving that things happened on 1/6 is a long ways from demonstrating that Trump was responsible for it.

There's been more than enough proof the last two days during the trial. The evidence covers the months before and after January 6. Two days worth of testimony and actual videos of the months involved cannot be posted on this format because it is many hours in length. It cannot be wrapped neatly in a quote to suit you. You know that but you keep at it anyway.

If you're serious about seeing the proof, then watch the trial. It will go on until Saturday. If you're not willing to educate yourself on the facts, then please stop bothering us.

Friday and Saturday will be Trump's defense. Don't miss that part to see two half-assed lawyer incompetents. Trump couldn't get a decent defense team because no law firm wants to deal with a deadbeat.

evidence, evidence of what, some misguided fools

Evidence that the dufus knew there was a great potential for violence and mayhem, and stoked it for all it was worth to disrupt the work of the congress, as his date for the rally was the same day. He also knew the permit for the rally was specific for a certain area, not the capitol building yet he sent the hoard there any way.

Through the mayhem did he lift a finger to help the cops and ensure the safety of elected officials family and staff? No he did not. WHY? In addition audio of the cops calling for help for rioting went unheeded. WHY?

His role in this was huge without a doubt, from the set up around the big lie of fraud to the staging and outcome.

Gotta love and admire the cult of personality

An interesting take on what happened..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-55959134

Good video overall . Whether there was fraud in the election results is not a
lie as the narrator suggests .It is conjecture and opinion . Neither side has proven their case definitively and even if they do ;a lie is intentional . Both sides of the issue believe they are right .

Trump said in his speech that the march toward the Capitol should be done peacefully. That fact has been ignored in 2 days of impeachment by the House prosecutors . I wonder why ?

They have also been hinting that the President is our Commander in Chief as if he has authority to command anything more than the armed services of the US . The leaders of the riot have been arrested and charged . Trump did not command them to attack the Capitol . Trump's use of the word 'fight ' is common political rhetoric and I'm sure with not too much effort I could find many examples of political leaders using it . When they use it are they also leaders of a cult ?

The video concludes that the attack on the Capitol is the "beginning " of a new era of violence as a political tool in the US . That completely ignores the fact that for the past year BLM/Antifa have been using violence effectively as a political tool to influence their political causes . They have been given rhetorical legitimacy by MANY in the ranks of the Democrats .They have essentially been the militia wing of the Democratic Party .

I would also point out that June 14 ,2017 ,a Bernie Sanders supporter attacked a group of Republican members of Congress who were practicing for a baseball game . He shot Rep Steve Scalise and others . Overall 5 people were injured before the shooter was shot and killed .

Rep Gabby Gifford was shot in the head and critically wounded by a deranged and mentally disturbed political independent in 2011.

In the 1960s and 1970s violence was used repeatedly by the left in opposition to the Vietnam war . Violence was used as a tool in the civil rights struggles in this country by both sides of the issue.

The raw truth is that violence has historically been a political tool used in this country for both good and bad causes . John Brown was a violent leaders in the pre civil war days as a strident abolitionist . All he did was take part in 'Bloody Kansas ' when the issue was if Kansas would enter the union as a free or slave state. He went on to attack a Federal armory in an attempt to foment a slave revolt.
So the idea that political violence began in the Trump era is absurd .

It cannot be wrapped neatly in a quote to suit you. You know that but you keep at it anyway.Then provide several quotes.


If you're serious about seeing the proof, then watch the trial. It will go on until Saturday. If you're not willing to educate yourself on the facts, then please stop bothering us.It's what people say when they have no evidence. "Don't bother me by asking for evidence."


Don't miss that part to see two half-assed lawyer incompetents.At least you're not biased.

@ Tom

No one says the dufus invented violence or lying. He uses both to his own ends to hold onto power and influence. Interesting how some on the right conflates BLM and antifa, but wants to separate white supremists from conservatism. I don't think that's consistent, and the dufus capitalizes on that conflation.

That completely ignores the fact that for the past year BLM/Antifa have been using violence effectively as a political tool to influence their political causes . They have been given rhetorical legitimacy by MANY in the ranks of the Democrats .They have essentially been the militia wing of the Democratic Party .That's a really good point. Violent protests over a really questionable narrative of widespread police brutality have been going on since Ferguson. Dem pols don't raise a whisper against it, and neither do the liberals on this board. The general attitude seems to be that if it can't be used against Trump, then it's not worth talking about.

No one says the dufus invented violence or lying. he uses both to his own ends

if you watch the video Ben posted ,that is exactly what is concluded in the last couple of minutes of the video.

One of the final comments was a man opining that this was the beginning of the emergence of a new movement with violence at its core. You just want to ask this guy where he's been the past few years.

if you watch the video Ben posted ,that is exactly what is concluded in the last couple of minutes of the video.

I drew my conclusions years ago when the dufus was a candidate.

Good video overall . Whether there was fraud in the election results is not a
lie as the narrator suggests .It is conjecture and opinion . Neither side has proven their case definitively

YES, it is Trump's biggest lie. No conjecture about it. Every election has been certified by Republican officials including secretaries of state. Even AG Barr, Trump's biggest flunkie, had to admit the election was fair and not fraud involved. Even for Barr, that was a bridge too far.


Trump said in his speech that the march toward the Capitol should be done peacefully. That fact has been ignored in 2 days of impeachment by the House prosecutors . I wonder why ?

Because it was clearly not spoken by Trump to have any meaningful portent. It was a throwaway line for the cameras. All you have to do is watch him saying it. He used "peace" once - other words of violence were used constantly in his speech.


Trump did not command them to attack the Capitol

Nobody said he did. A straw horse from you.The charge is that he INCITED them - not commanded them.


Trump's use of the word 'fight ' is common political rhetoric

Not the way Trump used it - he MEANT it literally. Watch the video.


are they also leaders of a cult ?

Trump is not the leader of a cult. He's not smart enough. His followers exhibit cult-like behavior. A difference.


for the past year BLM/Antifa have been using violence effectively as a political tool to influence their political causes

Man, you sure can get things wrong. The violence was due to the Police murdering black men and women because they were black. If you mean that they are using violence as a political took to keep blacks from being murdered - sure, of course they are.


They have essentially been the militia wing of the Democratic Party

Hogwash! The Republican Party has become one huge camp of armed insurrectionists.


I would also point out that June 14 ,2017 ,a Bernie Sanders supporter attacked a group of Republican members of Congress who were practicing for a baseball game . He shot Rep Steve Scalise and others . Overall 5 people were injured before the shooter was shot and killed .Rep Gabby Gifford was shot in the head and critically wounded by a deranged and mentally disturbed political independent in 2011.

This is called whataboutism - when you have nothing to defend re a current discussion, you revert to something not being discussed. I'm surprised you left out Benghazi. Or the French and Indian war.


In the 1960s and 1970s violence was used repeatedly by the left in opposition to the Vietnam war . Violence was used as a tool in the civil rights struggles in this country by both sides of the issue.

Both uses justified by an unjust war and by an unjust society. Bull Connor was an example of the other side of the issue.


The raw truth is that violence has historically been a political tool used in this country for both good and bad causes . John Brown was a violent leaders in the pre civil war days as a strident abolitionist . All he did was take part in 'Bloody Kansas ' when the issue was if Kansas would enter the union as a free or slave state. He went on to attack a Federal armory in an attempt to foment a slave revolt.

There has been violence in human affairs since Cain slew Abel. It's not news.

Good video overall . Whether there was fraud in the election results is not a
lie as the narrator suggests .It is conjecture and opinion . Neither side has proven their case definitively and even if they do ;a lie is intentional . Both sides of the issue believe they are right .

You know as well as I do that you can't prove the absence of a thing.
Fraud hasn't been proven at all, certainly not on the scale as raved about since November.
If it was THAT large then there would be something to see.

BLM/Antifa, etc, while violent, didn't forcibly occupy the seat of government...
The narrative writes itself.

As mentioned previously, the real end game here is to stop Trump re-entering public service at a later date.
Not to actually take any criminal action or even strip him of his retirees perks.
This is the establishment, pure and simply, enforcing their rules against a perceived usurper.
The party has no bearing, they just don't want to see this happen again, as it makes the entire US political system look very silly.
Nepotism rules and the Old Skool tie all the way.
Why do you think that The Capitol is full of life termers.

Very well said Ben, the point of the whole exercise is to make sure the dufus can't keep his promise..."This is just the beginning..." he said after the riot on the capitol, and the ball is in repubs lap. They shamefully fumbled the last opportunity to rid us of this lying, cheating, stealing bully, and he got even worse, but the PEOPLE saved us.

I disagree though that the election fraud narrative is anything but a big fat lie and always has been for the decades repubs have hollered it for the sake of limiting select populations exercise in the voting process. Repub state legislatures are already back at the game of restricting access after the latest election.

As mentioned previously, the real end game here is to stop Trump re-entering public service at a later date.
Not to actually take any criminal action or even strip him of his retirees perks.
This is the establishment, pure and simply, enforcing their rules against a perceived usurper.
The party has no bearing, they just don't want to see this happen again, as it makes the entire US political system look very silly.
Nepotism rules and the Old Skool tie all the way.
Why do you think that The Capitol is full of life termers.I think those are fair statements except for the last one. Rather surprisingly, most of the the members of the Senate have been in office for no more than two terms which would scarcely qualify them as "life termers". I didn't have enough energy to check out the House, but I would imagine the same is true there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_senators

Republican's have become the party of the dufus and the establishment is scared of his popularity with his base. Old school repubs have quite the party and run to the dems during the last election cycle, and many have become independents.

120 anti-Trump Republicans are in talks to form a center-right third party that would run on 'principled conservatism,' report says (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/120-anti-trump-republicans-are-in-talks-to-form-a-center-right-third-party-that-would-run-on-principled-conservatism-report-says/ar-BB1dAHmx)

Republicans at a crossroads while battling for the 'soul' of the GOP (businessinsider.com) (https://www.businessinsider.com/fight-for-soul-republican-party-congress-trump-cheney-mccarthy-greene-2021-2)

I think those are fair statements except for the last one. Rather surprisingly, most of the the members of the Senate have been in office for no more than two terms which would scarcely qualify them as "life termers". I didn't have enough energy to check out the House, but I would imagine the same is true there.
This problem is endemic, and not merely limited to the US.
Why have a President that can only serve 2 terms, yet the make up for the Senate doesn't change as often.
There are some serious Long termers, 30+ years right there.
13 from last century, only 9% are fresh intake.
The whole system needs an overhaul, and that has nothing to do with party lines.
The UK went through this type of pain with the overhaul of our upper chamber.


I disagree though that the election fraud narrative is anything but a big fat lie and always has been for the decades repubs have hollered it for the sake of limiting select populations exercise in the voting process. Repub state legislatures are already back at the game of restricting access after the latest election.
The fraud and steal was used to whip up further support for a dying regime.
This isn't limited to 6 Jan speech, but pretty much ever utterance after the election.
One last gasp at legitimacy.

I did not say there were no senators who had been serving a long time. Your statement was that the Capitol is "full of" them. I don't know how you define "full of", but 13 being from the last century would be 13% having served more than 20 years. That doesn't strike me as "full of". Perhaps we just see the phrase differently.

As to your term limits argument, you might have a good point. It would get rid of some incompetents, but would also get rid of some very qualified people. It's a tough call for me, but I'd probably vote for term limits right now if I had to choose.

I don't think the whole system needs an overhaul. That system is amazingly good and time tested. I think our problem is that we are becoming more and more dominated by a stupid electorate who can't see past pols who buy their votes by, for instance, borrowing money against the future to send checks to people who don't need them, or who waste valuable time trying to impeach a president who is now actually the former president, and who certainly did not do what they are foolishly accusing him of doing.

It is certain your system needs reform, there is a continuous electoral cycle going on. The house terms are too short, and there should be some form of term limit in both houses as there is for the president. Perhaps the election of the president should be detached from the other elections and clear uniform rules established. Electoral funding also needs reform

there is a continuous electoral cycle going on. That's actually not true, but I like the House terms being two years. Accountability and access to rapid change.


there should be some form of term limit in both houses as there is for the president.Maybe. I'm open to that, but are there term limits in the Australian Parliament?


Perhaps the election of the president should be detached from the other elections and clear uniform rules established.Detachment would serve no purpose. The topic of clear, uniform rules is one that I am open to hearing more about.


Electoral funding also needs reformThat's a touchy subject. What do you propose?

That's actually not true, but I like the House terms being two years. Accountability and access to rapid change. sounds good in theory but it shortens the ability of an administration to get things done

[
Maybe. I'm open to that, but are there term limits in the Australian Parliament?

no but I think it could benefit from it too. our system is somewhat more dynamic than yours at the leadership level


Detachment would serve no purpose. The topic of clear, uniform rules is one that I am open to hearing more about.

our elections are administered by a federal body so the same rules apply across the nation


That's a touchy subject. What do you propose?

No PAC, electoral advertising funded by government and limited. all contributions to parties declared and limited

As mentioned previously, the real end game here is to stop Trump re-entering public service at a later date.
Not to actually take any criminal action or even strip him of his retirees perks.
This is the establishment, pure and simply, enforcing their rules against a perceived usurper.

exactly right ... the establishment taking down a 'perceived ' usurper .

If Trump supporters think he is getting screwed he will come back stronger than ever ;elected or not .


Why do you think that The Capitol is full of life termers. I could give a dissertation on that subject . The cliff note version is that the framers created 2 ways to amend the Constitution . One of them is the tradition one that is initiated in Congress before the states ratify the amendment . Obviously Congress is NOT going to limit their terms . Almost all of them become filthy rich in office .

The other way to amend the Constitution has not been used since the framing . It is initiated in the State legislatures calling for a convention to amend . That gives the states sole power to write amendments and confirm them .

Here is the Article 5 text :


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

It is well past time for a convention of the states to convene and propose amendments ...... including term limits for both the legislative and judicial branches


I didn't have enough energy to check out the House, but I would imagine the same is true there.




In recent years this rate has been well over 90 per cent, with rarely more than 5-10 incumbents losing their House seats every election cycle.

but it shortens the ability of an administration to get things doneGood! The less the federal government does, then generally the better. The states are where most of the real governance is to be done. A strong federal government is a negative.


No PAC, electoral advertising funded by government and limited. all contributions to parties declared and limitedLimits on advertising amounts to limits on free speech. I have no confidence in the government being that involved in elections.

Good! The less the federal government does, then generally the better. The states are where most of the real governance is to be done. A strong federal government is a negative.

Limits on advertising amounts to limits on free speech. I have no confidence in the government being that involved in elections.

That is because you haven't tried a shorter election period and limits on advertising, you also haven't tried stronger governance without local politics interferring

That is because you haven't tried a shorter election period and limits on advertising, you also haven't tried stronger governance without local politics interferring

no thanks . You may want Canberra making local decisions for New South Wales ,Queensland and Tasmania ..... but I don't want some clown in DC making local decisions . Why not just eliminate your states and territories ? Federalism under your plan is meaningless.

A strong fed gov has gotten us over 30 tril in debt with much more to come. Our founders recognized that danger. Our present electorate is too dumb to stop it.

I certainly cannot blame repubs and the right for trying to cope with the electoral defeats of the last few election cycles. Losers usually blame everybody but themselves, but have heart, another election looms and maybe by then you will have figured out how to regroup like the dems did. Maybe the dufus if he ain't in jail can fix it for you AGAIN.

Is this really justified ?
Just goes to show how far they were prepared to go.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-56035299

If your point is that Trump sometimes behaved irrationally, then I think we will all concede that. Just don't leave out the many positives of the last four years.

Is this really justified ?
Just goes to show how far they were prepared to go.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-56035299

No surprise here! Blaming others for his failure is typical dufus.


If your point is that Trump sometimes behaved irrationally, then I think we will all concede that. Just don't leave out the many positives of the last four years.

Not the point at all.

Thank goodness Cuomo is a liberal dem. If not, then he'd be in big trouble.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cuomo-assembly-reactions-nursing-home-coronavirus-deaths

Thank goodness Cuomo is a liberal dem. If not, then he'd be in big trouble.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cuomo-assembly-reactions-nursing-home-coronavirus-deaths

Any elected official can be called to task because of actions they take. No exceptions.

Watch this, and then we can discuss incendiary language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo96_nfW_Qw

Cuomo even when caught is trying to deflect and blame Trump ...amazing .


Is this really justified ?
Just goes to show how far they were prepared to go.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-56035299

not at all . Pence was extremely loyal to Trump. Trump assumed Pence could do something in his ceremonial role of Congress certifying the results that Pence knew he could not constitutionally do .

Trump assumed Pence could do something in his ceremonial role of Congress certifying the results that Pence knew he could not constitutionally do .

Trump is stupid, but he's not totally ignorant. Of course, he knew Pence couldn't change or stop the count, but Trump decided to go ahead anyway because his colossol stupidity convinced him he could stay president if only the votes were not counted on January 6. Trump's narcissism will always trump his scant knowledge.

Cuomo even when caught is trying to deflect and blame Trump ...amazing .


The total number of deaths of elderly New Yorkers were not "covered up." Get the facts straight: elderly residents of nursing homes who contracted COVID, were then transferred from a nursing home to a hospital, and then died of COVID while in the hospital, were listed as having died in a hospital instead of in a nursing home.

That information, which some see as a potential mischaracterization of where an elderly person died--not whether they died--was then withheld for a time from the New York State Legislature. It was withheld because the DOJ also wanted information at the same time, and the DOJ was given preference delaying the info to the state.

If I am wrong, I welcome correction, but it all seems like a tempest in a teapot.

, but it all seems like a tempest in a teapot.

A very apt description of the whole affair

fact .....the total numbers that died in nursing homes were intentionally under reported by as much as 50 % .There has been a rash of resignations from NYS Health Dept over the cover up . Now that secretary to the governor Melissa DeRosa admitted to it in a conference call to Dem lawmakers ,I'm sure more will come forward . She said that Trump was turning the scandal into a 'political foorball ' ;and that as a result they 'froze' . Instead of apologizing to the families ,she instead tried to make amends to the lawmakers for the inconvenience they endured from the scandal . I do understand the position that you were put in. I know that it is not fair. It was not our intention to put you in that political position with the Republicans.”

The Slimes noted ;The disclosures have left Mr. Cuomo, a third-term Democrat, scrambling to contain the political fallout, as lawmakers of both parties call for censure, including stripping the governor of his emergency powers during the pandemic, federal and state investigations and resignations of Ms. DeRosa and other top officials.

If not for some hard gumshoe investigations by the Albany Times-Union, the Empire Center think tank's FOIA requests , and Janice Dean of Fox the truth may never had come out .
Cuomo Administration Releases FOIL-Requested Nursing Home Data - Empire Center for Public Policy (https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/cuomo-administration-releases-foil-requested-nursing-homes-data/)

"Between last week’s court order and tonight’s formal response, the department posted new death totals for each facility, including hospital deaths that had previously been omitted. Those revelations increased the known death toll from about 9,000 to almost 15,000—making clear that the pandemic’s toll on long-term care residents was much worse than the Cuomo administration previously portrayed it to be. This six-month fight should not have been necessary, The department should have been disclosing these numbers all along, and certainly should have provided them upon request—not just from Empire Center, but from legislators, reporters and members of the public. "

today's cancellation is actress Gina Carano who was playing a role in Disney's Mandalorian . Disney canned her for the heinous act of pointing out the obvious truth that the German Nazis were able to kill the Jews because they had taught the public to hate them and thus agree with that round-up. The Twitter goons went on a frenzy . Disney ,bowing to the mob ,fired her .

'The Mandalorian' star Gina Carano fired from Lucasfilm after fallout over social media post | The Post Millennial (https://thepostmillennial.com/the-mandalorian-star-gina-carano-fired-from-lucasfilm-after-fallout-over-social-media-post)


as a footnote . Disney also cancelled Peter Pan , Dumbo ,Swiss Family Robinson, and The Aristocats to children 7 or younger .

Why ?

Disney implemented a revised content advisory in October to flag up any issues surrounding racial stereotypes and concerns were raised in relation to Peter Pan and the other productions. The decision to ban the films from children’s accounts was made by a group of external experts who were brought in to assess if the content ‘represented global audiences’.
While the films remain available on adult accounts, they come with a disclaimer that says: ‘This programme includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures. These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now. ‘Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together.’

Disney+ blocks under-sevens from watching 'racist' Peter Pan, Dumbo and The Aristocats | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9179987/Disney-blocks-sevens-watching-racist-Peter-Pan-Dumbo-Aristocats.html)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55955588

I'm sure some will disagree, there are, however, some really big takeaways in it.

Coming from the BBC, I thought it was a surprisingly fair analysis.

No doubt the BBC is watching this whole thing LIVE rather than through partisan media lenses. I know...I got no life outside of Netflix.

My fringer friends have as much success making a case and answering questions as the dufus lawyers.

The latest riot in NYC was by BLM. Thank goodness for that. It relieves the local authorities from the burden of having to arrest anyone. But even if they do, our VP can be counted on to bail them out. It also gives the liberal dems a reason to NOT oppose the rioters.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/violent-blm-protest-two-nypd-injured

Dems fall 10 short of convicting the dufus. 57-43

Dems fall 10 short of convicting the dufus. 57-43

Gotta love partisanship...

Gotta love partisanship...

No surprise at all, nor was Minority Leader McConnell's scathing rebuke of the dufus while voting not guilty.

Slick Mitch has the next election cycle in his sights.

The United States led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions last year while also experiencing solid economic growth, according to a newly released report.
“The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt,” The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported (https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019) on Tuesday. “US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.”


This is speaking of 2019. Rather amazingly, this all happened even as electrical consumption actually INCREASED. Well, always good to be reminded.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/united-states-led-entire-world-in-reducing-co2-emissions-in-2019?fbclid=IwAR3hrTKB7LeaB_Q8ankufrlyxYxUvlxTiClu V_aMfeA7NONOyixlkl--N6E

Dems fall 10 short of convicting the dufus. 57-43
in other words not guilty .


Gotta love partisanship... according to the compliant press ;this is the most votes against the charged by his own party in American history . True as far as a statement of 'fact' . However it is deceptive . Andrew Johnson came within one vote of conviction . There have been 3 other impeachments ;Bubba and 2 for Trump . So what exactly is their point except more gothca ?


No surprise at all, nor was Minority Leader McConnell's scathing rebuke of the dufus while voting not guilty.

Slick Mitch has the next election cycle in his sights.
The turtle was on point and correct in that the Senate is no place to play judge and jury . An impeachment is a political process . If Trump is guilty of crimes ,it is for the justice dept and judiciary to deal with it .

If Trump is guilty of crimes ,it is for the justice dept and judiciary to deal with it .I don't think they'll do that. They know that if they have to follow the rules of justice, they won't stand a chance. This sham of a Senate trial broke all sorts of rules, and still they plainly had no case.

in other words not guilty .

according to the compliant press ;this is the most votes against the charged by his own party in American history . True as far as a statement of 'fact' . However it is deceptive . Andrew Johnson came within one vote of conviction . There have been 3 other impeachments ;Bubba and 2 for Trump . So what exactly is their point except more gothca ?


The turtle was on point and correct in that the Senate is no place to play judge and jury . An impeachment is a political process . If Trump is guilty of crimes ,it is for the justice dept and judiciary to deal with it .

The only thing you got right was that impeachment is a political process, and that political process will continue to play out for sure. Spin and all. Remember the dufus has only just begun, his words not mine.

McConnel's comment was priceless - he voted to acquit, then promptly bashed Trump for every charge brought against him - in the most vicious terms.

He explained his acquittal because Trump was no longer president so could not be tried as a private citizen. That's even more priceless, since he was the one who requested the trial be delayed until Trump was no longer president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don'cha love it???

McConnel's comment was priceless - he voted to acquit, then promptly bashed Trump for every charge brought against him - in the most vicious terms.

He explained his acquittal because Trump was no longer president so could not be tried as a private citizen. That's even more priceless, since he was the one who requested the trial be delayed until Trump was no longer president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don'cha love it???

Another perfect example of repub fixing the outcome. Just like the last impeachment of this dufus. Evidence and FACTS the fringers always demand just doesn't matter.

since he was the one who requested the trial be delayed until Trump was no longer president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don'cha love it???Yeah. I'm sure the liberal dems all sat around and said, "Our dear friend McConnel has requested we hold off until Trump is gone, so in a spirit of love and unity, let's do that!" Please don't ask us to believe something that ridiculous.

Yeah. I'm sure the liberal dems all sat around and said, "Our dear friend McConnel has requested we hold off until Trump is gone, so in a spirit of love and unity, let's do that!" Please don't ask us to believe something that ridiculous.

As dems have said repeatedly it doesn't matter when the trial goes forth, he was impeached while he was president for stuff he did as a president. Repubs are the only ones using McConnell's delay as an excuse to not convict the dufus. Nice spin but BOGUS!

Trump made history.He is now the most acquitted president in American history.

Trump made history.
Not in a particularly good way though...
I'm sure there's more to come, we haven't heard the last of this..

we haven't heard the last of this..I'm afraid that's true. When the repubs regain control, I hope they will have the courage to reject these sickening political circuses.

I'm afraid that's true. When the repubs regain control, I hope they will have the courage to reject these sickening political circuses.

This isn't party political, you need to look beyond the pettiness to the far bigger picture.

Both of the trials for Trump were purely political. The second was beyond incredible. Impeaching a pres who was no longer in office is just crazy.

If a president can't be impeached when IN office, and he/she can't be impeached when OUT of office, when can he/she be impeached???

Not following you. A sitting Pres can be impeached. Having a solid case really helps.

Trump made history.He is now the most acquitted president in American history.

And the most impeached in American history.

Mitch McConnell, the same person who refused to convene the Senate to begin an impeachment trial while Trump was still in office, later claimed it was unconstitutional to impeach a president after he's left office.

Please don't ask me to explain McConnell.

Please don't ask me to explain McConnell.

I'd be happy if you could just explain yourself.


Mitch McConnell, the same person who refused to convene the Senate to begin an impeachment trial while Trump was still in office, later claimed it was unconstitutional to impeach a president after he's left office.

Slick Mitch ain't fooling anybody. He knew where his party was and didn't dare vote against the dufus. Too many cowards and sycophants need those loony voters, and a civil war within the party hurts him and a bunch of repubs. He made a scathing speech against the dufus, but voted to acquit using a BS excuse he set up to cover his arse and his party, so he just had his cake and tried to eat it too.

For now it's still the dufus mob, and will remain so for some time, and Slick still wants to remain the repub senate leader. That simple.

And the most impeached in American history. and Bubba was impeached . Does the left think any less of him for it ? j is right . Impeachment is a political process. The Dems with Trump have tried to make it into an elaborate 'vote of no confidence.' .

and Bubba was impeached . Does the left think any less of him for it ? j is right . Impeachment is a political process. The Dems with Trump have tried to make it into an elaborate 'vote of no confidence.' .

The Repubs impeached Clinton for his private sex life. Trump was impeached for 1) betraying his country by bribing a foreign president, and, 2) for inciting insurrection to overthrow a legitimate election.

No contest.

Bubba was impeached for the same things you wanted to put Flynn in jail for .... perjury and suborning perjury . All 3 impeachments were political theatre ;as was Andrew Johnson's .

Had they impeached Nixon it would've been legit .

Bubba was impeached for the same things you wanted to put Flynn in jail for .... perjury and suborning perjury . All 3 impeachments were political theatre ;as was Andrew Johnson's .

Had they impeached Nixon it would've been legit .

His perjury was lying about his private sex life. Hardly an impeachable issue. Perjury is often excused in courts unless it's a major falsehood effecting more important issues. Trump's issues went to the heart of the republic.

As to impeachment being political theater, impeachment is a LEGAL process spelled out in the Constitution. It’s a myth that impeachment is just political. It’s the principal legal remedy that the Constitution expressly specifies to hold presidents accountable. It is the supreme law of the land.

His perjury was lying about his private sex life.Private??? You mean the incident that the entire world became aware of, and that BC repeatedly lied about, and concerning which he was entirely willing to sacrifice the reputation and career of a 21 year old WH female intern? That kind of "private"??? Why does it seem that none of that means much to liberal dems so long, of course, as it was a liberal dem who was guilty of it?

It’s the principal legal remedy that the Constitution expressly specifies to hold presidents accountable. It is the supreme law of the land.
Not the way it has been applied .
Johnson was impeached because he would not go along with the Republican reconstruction .
Bubba you already noted that it was not something that should've been dealt with by impeachment .Although it was clear that he perjured himself . That is why the judge punished him .

Trump 1 He got impeached for having a phone call with Zelenskiy asking him to look into the Quid Pro Joe crime family's dealings in Ukraine . And article 2 was about the President using his legitimate executive authority to deny Congressional subpoena demands (if Congress didn't like that they should've taken it to court ) .

Trump 2 The laws of incitement are clear and Trump's words being the cause of a riot would not hold up in court .Does he believe the election was stolen ? Yes .Therefore no matter how many times you throw out the word 'lie ' it is not so. What he said ,he believes. Nowhere did he instruct the protesters to storm the capitol to overthrow the government . What he wanted was the legal process to work out in his favor . He said to go to the capitol to support the lawmakers who were challenging the electoral results and to put pressure on others to change their mind. He was not rejecting the electoral process . He was trying to win within the process and the congressional certification was his last chance to do so .

The idea that he wanted Pence killed is equally stupid . Had Pence been killed ,Pelosi was next in line . So what would that gain him ? Putting pressure on Pence was a possibility only if Pence was alive A dead Pence served Trump no purpose . He needed Pence alive as the only person he thought could change the results . So the prosecution's contention that he sent the mob to kill Pence was equally a farce of a charge .

There may have been some leaders in the mob that incited them . For the most part the majority of them did not know what to do once they breached the building . Thus the selfies . That was hardly the act of insurrection.

Did he have anything to do with the planning of the Capitol defense ? No ;Capitol security is arranged by Congress .The police presence there was all arranged by the Capitol police and the Mayor of DC . So the President did not know the perimeter was so easy to breech . So he can't be accused of intent . He had no idea that some of the protesters would break away from the speech a good half hour before he ended the speech to attack the Capitol /

Therefore the impeachment was not about laws he broke .It was political .

Therefore the impeachment was not about laws he broke .It was political .

Wrong. Read the Constitution.

Of course Trump did not call for the killing of Pence. Talk about cherry-picking!

Apparently, you did not bother to watch the days of trial where the House Managers laid out in great detail all the actions of Trump before, during, and after the insurrection. Even the few honest Republicans with backbone voted to convict Trump.

Check out the strange comments from McConnell. And the truly bizarre behavior of McCarthy.

Wrong. Read the Constitution.Enlighten us.

Governor of Florida ;Ron DeSantis, is proposing legislation that asks the Florida state legislature to impose stiff fines – up to $100,000 per day – on tech companies that “deplatform” political candidates running for office in his state. His bill would allow individuals and the Florida attorney general to sue firms that violate newly established safeguards against privacy violations and censorship......and that colluding to ban people or companies from payment platforms or from cloud services, could also be outlawed.“Used to be that consumers were trusted to make their own decisions about what information to consume, about which leaders to ‘follow,’ about what news to watch,” he said. “Now those decisions are increasingly made by nameless, faceless boards of sensors.”
https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/gov-desantis-holds-press-conference-from-florida-state-capitol/

Clinton was guilty of being Clinton, Trump was guilty of being Trump. Now what is Pelosi guilty of?

Madam Mim is guilty of having PTDS Post Trump Derangement Syndrome . She has been completely obsessed with Trump as was evident by her ripping up his State of the Union Address during the address ;and her frequent impeachments against him. Even while her nephew Gavin Newsom's governorship hangs in the balance of a possible recall ;her obsession of Trump leads her to unconstitutionally impeaching an out of office President ;and trying to deny his ability to hold office again with a bizarre misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment