Maybe someone can explain to me what the hell he's talking about.  Because it seems to me he's fighting against imaginary forces.  But maybe I'm missing something.

ok I'll try. A couple of examples may be easier.

First let's take the Jobs report produced by the labor department. Remember how Biden was promoting how well he has done creating Jobs?   Recently after the Fed said it did not use it as it was less than accurate. The administration then was forced to adjust it reducing the jobs reported by the Department of Labor by a historical 800,000+ jobs in the run up to elections. Some say it was actually 1.1 million. At that point the Dems went silent not mentioning it during the campaign. The news agencies did not mention it much at all.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/202...886965007/

Second, the FBI and Biden crowed about the reduction in crime under him. Well until the FBI quietly was forced to revise the numbers....from 1.7% to 4.5%. Once again the Dems had to shut up bragging about this.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA1tiyle

There are many more on a government level. Also a few large companies did some stuff. You can tell the ones that did by the lack of aggressive anti-trust investigations against them. Law fare on a corporate level.

best I could do sorry...

You managed to babble about nothing of relevence.

Stick to censorship.

---

ok I'll try. A couple of examples may be easier.

First let's take the Jobs report produced by the labor department. Remember how Biden was promoting how well he has done creating Jobs?   Recently after the Fed said it did not use it as it was less than accurate. The administration then was forced to adjust it reducing the jobs reported by the Department of Labor by a historical 800,000+ jobs in the run up to elections. Some say it was actually 1.1 million. At that point the Dems went silent not mentioning it during the campaign. The news agencies did not mention it much at all.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/202...886965007/

Second, the FBI and Biden crowed about the reduction in crime under him. Well until the FBI quietly was forced to revise the numbers....from 1.7% to 4.5%. Once again the Dems had to shut up bragging about this.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA1tiyle

There are many more on a government level. Also a few large companies did some stuff. You can tell the ones that did by the lack of aggressive anti-trust investigations against them. Law fare on a corporate level.

best I could do sorry...

You managed to babble about nothing of relevence.

Stick to censorship.

Whatever you say sir ...

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

[quote pid="1660851" dateline="1731281083"]

---

So, who was practicing censorship in those cases?  The Dems have a Constitutional right to not talk about anything they want to not talk about.  So do the news agencies.  So do large companies.  All those entities have a Constitutional right to talk or not talk about anything.  And, thankfully, the government does not have a right to make someone say or not say anything.  

Now, if the Labor Department deliberately misstated the jobs numbers, that would be something, but that's not censorship.  It might be fraud or something, but that's not censorship.  

Now, if he aimed this idea of his at universities who take government money and then censor conservative speakers, I would be in favor of that.  I don't think they should get government funds and then censor conservatives.  But of course if you prevent them from censoring anyone, they'd have to let Hamas speak, or ISIS, or some group that wants kids to have sex change operations.  No censorship means no censorship.  You can't do it halfway.  It's either free speech or it's not.

Shouldn’t the news agencies report the news? You don’t think the numbers used to tout how well the country is doing being so much different than they actually are is news? Cuz if you’re not reporting news that is bad for one particular side, you’re no longer a news source but a mouth piece of a political party.
[/quote]

Go back and listen again. Fat Donald as usual cleverly talks about censorship but he slips in what he really wants. Listen for:

Federal agencies are banned from “categorizing” information. For example, if news agencies ask a Federal agency if something is true or not they can not comment.

And most importantly his fourth point.

Fourth:

We need to break up the industry that tackles “myths and disinformation.”

What he is really wanting to do is to censor information that he doesn’t like!

---

I have a concept of the intention to do that.

He’s definitely being burdened by that has-been.

---

So, who was practicing censorship in those cases?  The Dems have a Constitutional right to not talk about anything they want to not talk about.  So do the news agencies.  So do large companies.  All those entities have a Constitutional right to talk or not talk about anything.  And, thankfully, the government does not have a right to make someone say or not say anything.  

Now, if the Labor Department deliberately misstated the jobs numbers, that would be something, but that's not censorship.  It might be fraud or something, but that's not censorship.  

Now, if he aimed this idea of his at universities who take government money and then censor conservative speakers, I would be in favor of that.  I don't think they should get government funds and then censor conservatives.  But of course if you prevent them from censoring anyone, they'd have to let Hamas speak, or ISIS, or some group that wants kids to have sex change operations.  No censorship means no censorship.  You can't do it halfway.  It's either free speech or it's not.

Shouldn’t the news agencies report the news? You don’t think the numbers used to tout how well the country is doing being so much different than they actually are is news? Cuz if you’re not reporting news that is bad for one particular side, you’re no longer a news source but a mouth piece of a political party.

Go back and listen again. Trump as usual cleverly talks about censorship but he slips in what he really wants. Listen for:

Federal agencies are banned from “categorizing” information. For example, if news agencies ask a Federal agency if something is true or not they can not comment.

And most importantly his fourth point.

Fourth:

We need to break up the industry that tackles “myths and disinformation.”

What he is really wanting to do is to censor information that he doesn’t like!

---

Sure. The government never censors. When did the left become such mindless bootlickers? A quick search would give you the basics, but I guess you're too busy carrying water to google anything. I'll do it for you.

• Hunter Biden Laptop Story - The most obvious. Social media platforms blocked the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, citing disinformation concerns. Later, the story was verified as authentic. The suppression seemed driven by FBI warnings about Russian disinformation, which raised concerns that the government censored legitimate news for political reasons.
  
  
• Disinformation Governance Board - Remember this gem? DHS created a Disinformation Governance Board to monitor online misinformation. The board was quickly shelved after backlash, with critics fearing it could be used to suppress political speech. The attempt raised concerns about government control over public discourse.
  
  
• CISA's Rumor Control - Here's one most of us didn't know about. CISA launched Rumor Control to debunk election-related misinformation, but it also flagged legitimate concerns, like the lab-leak theory. While some disinformation was harmful, this initiative may have stifled valid public discussion and emerging facts, especially as the lab-leak theory later gained traction.
  
  
• COVID-19 Misinformation - I could write a book on this one, but I'll just hit the basics. The government pressured social media platforms to remove COVID-19 content that contradicted official guidance. While I will concede some content was indeed false, discussions about vaccine safety and the virus's origins were censored. Additionally, the government attempted to stifle important debates that later turned out to be valid.
  
  
• FBI Social Media Monitoring - The FBI worked with tech companies to flag posts about election fraud, but many of these claims, though disproven, were stifled without public discussion. That's the important part. The censorship prevented a broader debate about potential flaws in the election process, even if the claims were ultimately unsubstantiated.
  
  
• Russian Disinformation Claims - Russia. Russia. Russia. The government pressured social media platforms to remove content tied to Russian interference. While Russian efforts were confirmed, some flagged accounts were legitimate political discourse. Over-censorship in this case may have suppressed valid political speech. It also turns out that most of this nonsense originated from the Clinton camp. Shocker.
  
  
• National Response Framework for Disinformation - More government control of speech. The government’s National Response Framework coordinated efforts to remove disinformation online. While it aimed to limit harmful content, it also raised fears about silencing dissenting views or stifling important debates by labeling them as false or harmful.
  
  
• Social Media and Extremism- The FBI and DHS monitored and removed extremist content from social media. While intended to combat violent extremism, some non-violent political speech was labeled as “extreme,” leading to concerns that legitimate political dialogue was being suppressed. Additionally, the Twitter Files revealed internal communications showing how Twitter worked with government agencies, including the FBI and DHS, to censor content related to the 2020 election, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and COVID-19. These documents showed how government pressure, both direct and indirect, influenced Twitter’s content moderation, raising concerns about free speech and the level of government involvement in shaping online narratives.
  

But I'm sure you will say all this government censorship was necessary and only positive, right?

---

Sure. The government never censors. When did the left become such mindless bootlickers? A quick search would give you the basics, but I guess you're too busy carrying water to google anything. I'll do it for you.

• Hunter Biden Laptop Story - The most obvious. Social media platforms blocked the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, citing disinformation concerns. Later, the story was verified as authentic. The suppression seemed driven by FBI warnings about Russian disinformation, which raised concerns that the government censored legitimate news for political reasons.
  
  
• Disinformation Governance Board - Remember this gem? DHS created a Disinformation Governance Board to monitor online misinformation. The board was quickly shelved after backlash, with critics fearing it could be used to suppress political speech. The attempt raised concerns about government control over public discourse.
  
  
• CISA's Rumor Control - Here's one most of us didn't know about. CISA launched Rumor Control to debunk election-related misinformation, but it also flagged legitimate concerns, like the lab-leak theory. While some disinformation was harmful, this initiative may have stifled valid public discussion and emerging facts, especially as the lab-leak theory later gained traction.
  
  
• COVID-19 Misinformation - I could write a book on this one, but I'll just hit the basics. The government pressured social media platforms to remove COVID-19 content that contradicted official guidance. While I will concede some content was indeed false, discussions about vaccine safety and the virus's origins were censored. Additionally, the government attempted to stifle important debates that later turned out to be valid.
  
  
• FBI Social Media Monitoring - The FBI worked with tech companies to flag posts about election fraud, but many of these claims, though disproven, were stifled without public discussion. That's the important part. The censorship prevented a broader debate about potential flaws in the election process, even if the claims were ultimately unsubstantiated.
  
  
• Russian Disinformation Claims - Russia. Russia. Russia. The government pressured social media platforms to remove content tied to Russian interference. While Russian efforts were confirmed, some flagged accounts were legitimate political discourse. Over-censorship in this case may have suppressed valid political speech. It also turns out that most of this nonsense originated from the Clinton camp. Shocker.
  
  
• National Response Framework for Disinformation - More government control of speech. The government’s National Response Framework coordinated efforts to remove disinformation online. While it aimed to limit harmful content, it also raised fears about silencing dissenting views or stifling important debates by labeling them as false or harmful.
  
  
• Social Media and Extremism- The FBI and DHS monitored and removed extremist content from social media. While intended to combat violent extremism, some non-violent political speech was labeled as “extreme,” leading to concerns that legitimate political dialogue was being suppressed. Additionally, the Twitter Files revealed internal communications showing how Twitter worked with government agencies, including the FBI and DHS, to censor content related to the 2020 election, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and COVID-19. These documents showed how government pressure, both direct and indirect, influenced Twitter’s content moderation, raising concerns about free speech and the level of government involvement in shaping online narratives.
  

But I'm sure you will say all this government censorship was necessary and only positive, right?

If he's a free speech advocate, then he should have no problem with the "lying media".  Didn't he want to close them down and/or prosecute them?...  Because, after all, lies are free speech, right?...  Talk about hypocrisy...

---

Sure. The government never censors.

The constitutions forbids all forms of censorship. 

How are you a US born citizen and don't know basic level law?

---

How are you a thinking human being and this stupid?

---

Sure. The government never censors. When did the left become such mindless bootlickers? A quick search would give you the basics, but I guess you're too busy carrying water to google anything. I'll do it for you.

• Hunter Biden Laptop Story - The most obvious. Social media platforms blocked the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, citing disinformation concerns. Later, the story was verified as authentic. The suppression seemed driven by FBI warnings about Russian disinformation, which raised concerns that the government censored legitimate news for political reasons.
  
  
• Disinformation Governance Board - Remember this gem? DHS created a Disinformation Governance Board to monitor online misinformation. The board was quickly shelved after backlash, with critics fearing it could be used to suppress political speech. The attempt raised concerns about government control over public discourse.
  
  
• CISA's Rumor Control - Here's one most of us didn't know about. CISA launched Rumor Control to debunk election-related misinformation, but it also flagged legitimate concerns, like the lab-leak theory. While some disinformation was harmful, this initiative may have stifled valid public discussion and emerging facts, especially as the lab-leak theory later gained traction.
  
  
• COVID-19 Misinformation - I could write a book on this one, but I'll just hit the basics. The government pressured social media platforms to remove COVID-19 content that contradicted official guidance. While I will concede some content was indeed false, discussions about vaccine safety and the virus's origins were censored. Additionally, the government attempted to stifle important debates that later turned out to be valid.
  
  
• FBI Social Media Monitoring - The FBI worked with tech companies to flag posts about election fraud, but many of these claims, though disproven, were stifled without public discussion. That's the important part. The censorship prevented a broader debate about potential flaws in the election process, even if the claims were ultimately unsubstantiated.
  
  
• Russian Disinformation Claims - Russia. Russia. Russia. The government pressured social media platforms to remove content tied to Russian interference. While Russian efforts were confirmed, some flagged accounts were legitimate political discourse. Over-censorship in this case may have suppressed valid political speech. It also turns out that most of this nonsense originated from the Clinton camp. Shocker.
  
  
• National Response Framework for Disinformation - More government control of speech. The government’s National Response Framework coordinated efforts to remove disinformation online. While it aimed to limit harmful content, it also raised fears about silencing dissenting views or stifling important debates by labeling them as false or harmful.
  
  
• Social Media and Extremism- The FBI and DHS monitored and removed extremist content from social media. While intended to combat violent extremism, some non-violent political speech was labeled as “extreme,” leading to concerns that legitimate political dialogue was being suppressed. Additionally, the Twitter Files revealed internal communications showing how Twitter worked with government agencies, including the FBI and DHS, to censor content related to the 2020 election, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and COVID-19. These documents showed how government pressure, both direct and indirect, influenced Twitter’s content moderation, raising concerns about free speech and the level of government involvement in shaping online narratives.
  

But I'm sure you will say all this government censorship was necessary and only positive, right?

If he's a free speech advocate, then he should have no problem with the "lying media".  Didn't he want to close them down and/or prosecute them?...  Because, after all, lies are free speech, right?...  Talk about hypocrisy...

Before we proceed, are you moving the goal posts? Admit you're done with the censorship schtick, then we can address this useless rabbit trail.

---

Sure. The government never censors.

The constitutions forbids all forms of censorship. 

How are you a US born citizen and don't know basic level law?

You know, on second thought, I think I'd be hard-pressed to make a single sentence with more logical fallacies than this one. It's honestly impressive. Maybe you're not stupid. Maybe you're a genius and you just want to show us what it would look like if someone was like, really, really, really illogical.

False dichotomy, ad hominem, hasty generalization, begging the question, loaded question, appeal to authority, appeal to common sense, questionable analogy... I mean... really. It's impressive.

---

How are you a thinking human being and this stupid?

---

If he's a free speech advocate, then he should have no problem with the "lying media".  Didn't he want to close them down and/or prosecute them?...  Because, after all, lies are free speech, right?...  Talk about hypocrisy...

Before we proceed, are you moving the goal posts? Admit you're done with the censorship schtick, then we can address this useless rabbit trail.

Admit that you cannot come up with any policies in that video that your cult leader made.

Stick to the OP.

---

You managed to babble about nothing of relevence.

Stick to censorship.

Huh... that's weird. In post 21, you say stick to censorship, so I address your censorship question. Now that it's been addressed, you say stick to the OP. Do you understand what it means when I say you're moving the goal posts? 

Acknowledge that I addressed your censorship concern, then I will go and try to help you with your other mental deficiency.

---

You managed to babble about nothing of relevence.

Stick to censorship.

Huh... that's weird. In post 21, you say stick to censorship, so I address your censorship question. Now that it's been addressed, you say stick to the OP. Do you understand what it means when I say you're moving the goal posts? 

Acknowledge that I addressed your censorship concern, then I will go and try to help you with your other mental deficiency.

Did he address a policy in that video somewhere? Or did my "mental defiency" take over? Please help me.

---

I love that I can feel you seething with every thread you start on Trump. It’s a glorious feeling.

<<<=== “They’re eating the dogs!” - Donald Felonious Trump  

The premise is pretty funny though - Felon Donald being a free speech advocate. LOL.

---

Apparently, I can't help you. Marty wanted to know what "censorship" Trump was fighting. You asked the previous poster to limit his expression to censorship. I gave you several examples of government overreach with regards to censorship. Instead of addressing it, you want to move the goal posts. If you have a problem with my post, pick a point and address it. If not, acquiesce.

Once you acknowledge that there is censorship, we will move onto your next point. Until then, I'm not chasing rabbits.

---

Huh... that's weird. In post 21, you say stick to censorship, so I address your censorship question. Now that it's been addressed, you say stick to the OP. Do you understand what it means when I say you're moving the goal posts? 

Acknowledge that I addressed your censorship concern, then I will go and try to help you with your other mental deficiency.

Did he address a policy in that video somewhere? Or did my "mental defiency" take over? Please help me.

---

I love that I can feel you seething with every thread you start on Trump. It’s a glorious feeling.

<<<=== “They’re eating the dogs!” - Donald Felonious Trump  

The premise is pretty funny though - Felon Donald being a free speech advocate. LOL.

Not for long my friend, justice will be served.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Did he address a policy in that video somewhere? Or did my "mental defiency" take over? Please help me.

---

<<<=== “They’re eating the dogs!” - Donald Felonious Trump  

The premise is pretty funny though - Felon Donald being a free speech advocate. LOL.

Not for long my friend, justice will be served.

Doubtful - he owns both of the governments now. All his cases will be dismissed.

---

Not for long my friend, justice will be served.

Doubtful - he owns both of the governments now. All his cases will be dismissed.

That's what the said, justice will be served.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Hey mods, are the use of political avatars allowed now?

---

Not for long my friend, justice will be served.

Doubtful - he owns both of the governments now. All his cases will be dismissed.

Actually, it was a supreme court ruling not the election. Previously the Judges had to agree with the definition of the prosecutors when it came to a lot of laws. That is now not the case. The laws Trump were convicted of had a 2 year statue of limitations and are misdemeanors in New York. The statute of limitations were past, but defined by the prosecutor in an odd way to allow the charges. The bundling of misdemeanors the same. The law used was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court, so I expect either the judge will expunge or the appeals court will.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supre...-agencies/

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Hey mods, are the use of political avatars allowed now?

Nope.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Hey mods, are the use of political avatars allowed now?

Nope.

I should be grandfathered in since I had Elon as an avi before he even entered the political arena..

But I have no problem changing if need be.

---

Apparently, I can't help you. Marty wanted to know what "censorship" Trump was fighting. You asked the previous poster to limit his expression to censorship. I gave you several examples of government overreach with regards to censorship. Instead of addressing it, you want to move the goal posts. If you have a problem with my post, pick a point and address it. If not, acquiesce.

Once you acknowledge that there is censorship, we will move onto your next point. Until then, I'm not chasing rabbits.

 

You do realize that Trump is soon to be the government. Are you suggesting he will have no business in correcting information put out there against him?

The government has every right to correct incorrect information. That is not the same as suppressing it. To say the government must stay silent in the face of incorrect information is absurd.

The opposite is also true . If Trump lies, rephrase, when Trump lies , the media has the right to put the facts our there. 


I’m somewhat surprised that you would support such an authoritarian anti-American proposal.

In the video Trump is very clear what the policy is. Both Trump and Vance have been railing about fact checkers because they make it more difficult for Trump and his supporters to lie and con the American people. He wants to be able to spread totally unchecked misinformation.

In the video he states that he plans to do everything under his power to prevent Federal employees from outing his and his supporters lies and silencing any media that does not support his state propaganda.

In the video he makes the twisted claim that this somehow promotes free speech.

Trump’s plan is the cornerstone of any authoritarian government. He’s just borrowing from the playbook of Putin, Orban, Xi, etc.

Everyone should listen to this sick video and hopefully recognize it for what it is. I wouldn't hold my breath though....

---