**OFFICIAL Donald J. Trump vs. Joseph (Joe) R. Biden Thread - 2020 Presidential Election**

[Walter Sobchak]

He didn't 'hold up' the investigation. He just didn't make it's existence public, like any other investigation, including the investigation into the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Do you remember any announcement that the Trump was under investigation during the election? No. So we know what would've happened if the shoe was on the other foot. Except Hunter Bidens foot is irrelevant since he isn't running for office or a public figure. The only benefit I can really see for the Democrats here is maybe if the investigation was announced Trump wouldn't have gone through with the 'Hunters Laptop October Surprise' which was just embarrassing and only hurt Trump.

All that being said, I'm just as surprised Barr did the right thing as I am with Brian Kemp.

Trump wasn't being investigated in 2016. His campaign was being spied on by the Obama Administration. Obama, Biden, Rice, Brennan, Clapper and Comey were all in on it. They were looking for any kind of dirt to shoot down his chances of being elected. Pure out treason.

If the Trump kids had done what Hunter did you libtards would be screaming bloody murder, calling for their heads.

You libtards screamed bloody murder for 4 yearsw that Trump was compromised by Russia without any evidence. Here we have evidence of the Bidens being compromised by the Chi-Comms and you libtards say its a nothingburger. Fuck you.

THE BIDENS ARE CHINESE ASSETS.

Apparently you don't know what treason is. Ok Mr. "show me a line from the Constitution!" here it is:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[thesidedish]

denial. also cant expect ppl to think clearly in 2020. but oh well, i don't care about that, i bet $ i dont need aka the credit card

Thank you for committing fraud and destroying your credit to make people like PLOL and myself a little bit wealthier.

Members helping members.

spineless trash, i notice whenever i absolutely kill you, you NEVER respond to those words. weasel motherfucker

[sonatine]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1338680328395907077

absolutely fascinating; lindsey graham just said that the conservative movement cannot survive if voting is made easier or if social media starts to filter disinformation.

[garrett]

lol, this thread...


let me grab my popcorn real quick, just sitting down to read the lols in this one =)....

[thesidedish]

lol, this thread...


let me grab my popcorn real quick, just sitting down to read the lols in this one =)....

u a 10 second tom or sumpin, u seem to be fascinated by standard PFA material

[Walter Sobchak]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1338680328395907077

absolutely fascinating; lindsey graham just said that the conservative movement cannot survive if voting is made easier or if social media starts to filter disinformation.

Every notice that the "BREAKING NEWS" banner is permanently up on Fox?

[Dan Druff]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1338680328395907077

absolutely fascinating; lindsey graham just said that the conservative movement cannot survive if voting is made easier or if social media starts to filter disinformation.

That's not what he said at all, and you know it.

He was saying that the threats involve biased social media companies blocking stories which make Democrats look bad, and universal mail-in voting which is ripe for fraud. In fact, as we are seeing now, universal mail-in voting gives the appearance of fraud even when there isn't massive fraud.

He's right. Both of these things suck. I realize you are now part of the Censorship Left -- something being decried by longtime liberal intellectuals who still have principles, but you go with your bad self with saying that ideological censorship is the hallmark of a functioning democracy.

[Rick Sanchez]

That's not what he said at all, and you know it.

He was saying that the threats involve biased social media companies blocking stories which make Democrats look bad, and universal mail-in voting which is ripe for fraud. In fact, as we are seeing now, universal mail-in voting gives the appearance of fraud even when there isn't massive fraud.

He's right. Both of these things suck. I realize you are now part of the Censorship Left -- something being decried by longtime liberal intellectuals who still have principles, but you go with your bad self with saying that ideological censorship is the hallmark of a functioning democracy.

I'm aware that YouTube is beginning to censor videos about the election, which is awful, but fwiw they started doing this after election. And I'm aware of Twitter disallowing links to an article about Hunter Biden one day, which was awful.

But aside from that, were there any significant acts of censorship that affected the election? As far as I know there's been nothing stopping millions of retards, including the President himself, from spewing nonsense conspiracies. Labeling stuff with "this claim is disputed" is not the same thing. If that's what Graham is complaining about then just lol

I'm not one of those people who cries about Russia blasting misinformation to rile up gullible redneck voters. But at least they managed to have some impact. I'm not seeing how social media companies tipped the scales at all.

[Dan Druff]

That's not what he said at all, and you know it.

He was saying that the threats involve biased social media companies blocking stories which make Democrats look bad, and universal mail-in voting which is ripe for fraud. In fact, as we are seeing now, universal mail-in voting gives the appearance of fraud even when there isn't massive fraud.

He's right. Both of these things suck. I realize you are now part of the Censorship Left -- something being decried by longtime liberal intellectuals who still have principles, but you go with your bad self with saying that ideological censorship is the hallmark of a functioning democracy.

I'm aware that YouTube is beginning to censor videos about the election, which is awful, but fwiw they started doing this after election. And I'm aware of Twitter disallowing links to an article about Hunter Biden one day, which was awful.

But aside from that, were there any significant acts of censorship that affected the election? As far as I know there's been nothing stopping millions of retards, including the President himself, from spewing nonsense conspiracies. Labeling stuff with "this claim is disputed" is not the same thing. If that's what Graham is complaining about then just lol

I'm not one of those people who cries about Russia blasting misinformation to rile up gullible redneck voters. But at least they managed to have some impact. I'm not seeing how social media companies tipped the scales at all.

I don't think it changed the result of the election.

My concerns are the following:

1) That it's becoming more and more normalized to censor content on social media, under the guise of calling it "misinformation".

2) Even labels of "misinformation" are dangerous (though not as bad as outright censorship) if they aren't done by a truly neutral body. The fact that not a single claim from the left has been labeled that way is very concerning.

3) Many on the left are just fine with censoring and cancelling the other side. They have the arrogant belief that they are actually doing a good thing because they're "preventing the spread of hate" or "preventing false and misleading information from being spread". It's like all of the lessons of the dangers of ideological censorship learned by modern society have been extracted from their collective brains.

[limitles]

I'm aware that YouTube is beginning to censor videos about the election, which is awful, but fwiw they started doing this after election. And I'm aware of Twitter disallowing links to an article about Hunter Biden one day, which was awful.

But aside from that, were there any significant acts of censorship that affected the election? As far as I know there's been nothing stopping millions of retards, including the President himself, from spewing nonsense conspiracies. Labeling stuff with "this claim is disputed" is not the same thing. If that's what Graham is complaining about then just lol

I'm not one of those people who cries about Russia blasting misinformation to rile up gullible redneck voters. But at least they managed to have some impact. I'm not seeing how social media companies tipped the scales at all.

I don't think it changed the result of the election.

My concerns are the following:

1) That it's becoming more and more normalized to censor content on social media, under the guise of calling it "misinformation".

2) Even labels of "misinformation" are dangerous (though not as bad as outright censorship) if they aren't done by a truly neutral body. The fact that not a single claim from the left has been labeled that way is very concerning.

3) Many on the left are just fine with censoring and cancelling the other side. They have the arrogant belief that they are actually doing a good thing because they're "preventing the spread of hate" or "preventing false and misleading information from being spread". It's like all of the lessons of the dangers of ideological censorship learned by modern society have been extracted from their collective brains.

I have to give it up to those sneaky liberals. Who knew a pandemic would force a nation to rely on an obviously faulty form of voting? The Democrats.

Who knew the potential power of social media platforms in polluting the opinions of an unsuspecting electorate. The Democrats.

And who knew satirists and comedians would enjoy similar powers over the masses and who imagined the great majority of those would align with liberal ideals. The Democrats.

[desertrunner]

[desertrunner]

[Salty_Aus]

I'm aware that YouTube is beginning to censor videos about the election, which is awful, but fwiw they started doing this after election. And I'm aware of Twitter disallowing links to an article about Hunter Biden one day, which was awful.

But aside from that, were there any significant acts of censorship that affected the election? As far as I know there's been nothing stopping millions of retards, including the President himself, from spewing nonsense conspiracies. Labeling stuff with "this claim is disputed" is not the same thing. If that's what Graham is complaining about then just lol

I'm not one of those people who cries about Russia blasting misinformation to rile up gullible redneck voters. But at least they managed to have some impact. I'm not seeing how social media companies tipped the scales at all.

I don't think it changed the result of the election.

My concerns are the following:

1) That it's becoming more and more normalized to censor content on social media, under the guise of calling it "misinformation".

2) Even labels of "misinformation" are dangerous (though not as bad as outright censorship) if they aren't done by a truly neutral body. The fact that not a single claim from the left has been labeled that way is very concerning.

3) Many on the left are just fine with censoring and cancelling the other side. They have the arrogant belief that they are actually doing a good thing because they're "preventing the spread of hate" or "preventing false and misleading information from being spread". It's like all of the lessons of the dangers of ideological censorship learned by modern society have been extracted from their collective brains.

So what should you do with obvious propaganda?

People these days know so much more then past generations. But they seem to lack the ability to think for themselves, so much information available at their fingertips, the ability to think for themselves appears to be suffering. IMO

I'm a free speech person. Always thought if you talk nonsense people will figure it out. These days I don't believe this is true. Just look at all these Trump supporters who are suckling on his propaganda and are buying it in droves.

Its a really good point and will cause plenty of trouble in years to come.
Something does need to be done.
Trump as an example should have been banned from Twitter for his non stop propaganda. And let's not mince words, its beyond misinformation and is clearly propaganda.

[Dan Druff]

I don't think it changed the result of the election.

My concerns are the following:

1) That it's becoming more and more normalized to censor content on social media, under the guise of calling it "misinformation".

2) Even labels of "misinformation" are dangerous (though not as bad as outright censorship) if they aren't done by a truly neutral body. The fact that not a single claim from the left has been labeled that way is very concerning.

3) Many on the left are just fine with censoring and cancelling the other side. They have the arrogant belief that they are actually doing a good thing because they're "preventing the spread of hate" or "preventing false and misleading information from being spread". It's like all of the lessons of the dangers of ideological censorship learned by modern society have been extracted from their collective brains.

So what should you do with obvious propaganda?

People these days know so much more then past generations. But they seem to lack the ability to think for themselves, so much information available at their fingertips, the ability to think for themselves appears to be suffering. IMO

I'm a free speech person. Always thought if you talk nonsense people will figure it out. These days I don't believe this is true. Just look at all these Trump supporters who are suckling on his propaganda and are buying it in droves.

Its a really good point and will cause plenty of trouble in years to come.
Something does need to be done.
Trump as an example should have been banned from Twitter for his non stop propaganda. And let's not mince words, its beyond misinformation and is clearly propaganda.

Anything can be done except censorship.

You simply cannot justify censorship by claiming that "people can't think for themselves". If that's true, then it's more important than ever for censorship not to exist, because suppression of one side's news will cause the sheep-like people to automatically default to the side which gets its views across.

The solution to people being misled is to present counter-information, and to present it in a clear and convincing fashion. This also requires not talking down to the subjects you're trying to present the information to -- something the left is very bad at doing.

The problem is that "misinformation" is very subjective, and that term can be abused in order to commit acts of outright censorship. Look at the Hunter Biden thing. Whether or not you believe the story as presented, it was in a major publication, and there was definitely at least some element of truth to it. Yet it was censored as misinformation. That should scare you if you really do care about free speech, as you say.

In fact, even the "fact checkers" on social media refuse to present any sort of proof that they are unbiased, or disclose the political affiliation of their staff. You just need to trust them that they're unbiased because they say so.

This was all figured out long before any of us were born. You can't have a free country when one side censors the news, even if it's supposedly with a noble goal. It's too prone to abuse, and even good-hearted attempts to filter out phony news can end up censoring something which seems hard to believe but is actually true.

It's just a really horrible idea.

[Dan Druff]

The poor media is having a really hard time with their "firsts", when it turns out their historical firsts were already done by Trump.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1326002146853220352

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1339061314761744384



Remember when all the white limousine liberals screeched in 2016 that LGBT rights were going to be destroyed under Trump? Yeah, that didn't exactly happen.

[limitles]

So what should you do with obvious propaganda?

People these days know so much more then past generations. But they seem to lack the ability to think for themselves, so much information available at their fingertips, the ability to think for themselves appears to be suffering. IMO

I'm a free speech person. Always thought if you talk nonsense people will figure it out. These days I don't believe this is true. Just look at all these Trump supporters who are suckling on his propaganda and are buying it in droves.

Its a really good point and will cause plenty of trouble in years to come.
Something does need to be done.
Trump as an example should have been banned from Twitter for his non stop propaganda. And let's not mince words, its beyond misinformation and is clearly propaganda.

Anything can be done except censorship.

You simply cannot justify censorship by claiming that "people can't think for themselves". If that's true, then it's more important than ever for censorship not to exist, because suppression of one side's news will cause the sheep-like people to automatically default to the side which gets its views across.

The solution to people being misled is to present counter-information, and to present it in a clear and convincing fashion. This also requires not talking down to the subjects you're trying to present the information to -- something the left is very bad at doing.

The problem is that "misinformation" is very subjective, and that term can be abused in order to commit acts of outright censorship. Look at the Hunter Biden thing. Whether or not you believe the story as presented, it was in a major publication, and there was definitely at least some element of truth to it. Yet it was censored as misinformation. That should scare you if you really do care about free speech, as you say.

In fact, even the "fact checkers" on social media refuse to present any sort of proof that they are unbiased, or disclose the political affiliation of their staff. You just need to trust them that they're unbiased because they say so.

This was all figured out long before any of us were born. You can't have a free country when one side censors the news, even if it's supposedly with a noble goal. It's too prone to abuse, and even good-hearted attempts to filter out phony news can end up censoring something which seems hard to believe but is actually true.

It's just a really horrible idea.

No such thing as censorship on a private media platform
If there is then you are every bit as guilty.
You claim all those banned or restricted by you is for the good of the forum.
I don't agree. Where are my rights?
Your narrow mindedness gets drowned out and you freak out.
Mr. fucking free speech. Hypocrite

[blake]

So what should you do with obvious propaganda?

People these days know so much more then past generations. But they seem to lack the ability to think for themselves, so much information available at their fingertips, the ability to think for themselves appears to be suffering. IMO

I'm a free speech person. Always thought if you talk nonsense people will figure it out. These days I don't believe this is true. Just look at all these Trump supporters who are suckling on his propaganda and are buying it in droves.

Its a really good point and will cause plenty of trouble in years to come.
Something does need to be done.
Trump as an example should have been banned from Twitter for his non stop propaganda. And let's not mince words, its beyond misinformation and is clearly propaganda.

Anything can be done except censorship.

You simply cannot justify censorship by claiming that "people can't think for themselves". If that's true, then it's more important than ever for censorship not to exist, because suppression of one side's news will cause the sheep-like people to automatically default to the side which gets its views across.

The solution to people being misled is to present counter-information, and to present it in a clear and convincing fashion. This also requires not talking down to the subjects you're trying to present the information to -- something the left is very bad at doing.

what you're saying sounds right on paper but, in the real world, will not be successful.

first, i think we both agree that a giant chunk of americans (team retard) are too stupid to think for themselves.

countering that with providing team retard information and presenting it in a clear and convincing fashion won't work if they won't listen to it.

there used to be a time when news came from one source. there wasn't liberal or conservative news. there was just news.

now we choose what we want to hear and only listen to news that reinforces our biases. it's the end result of the commercialization of journalism.

like, rachel maddow (for example, i don't watch her) can come with the most convincing ironclad argument as to why trump actually lost the election but not one member of team retard will ever see it. how exactly do you solve this problem? hope that changes? hope sean hannity comes to his senses?

how does this get fixed?

[blake]

and for the record, i probably agree with druff that the censorship of information will probably do more damage than not censoring it.

but i think my point is we're 100% fucked either way.

[Sanlmar]

and for the record, i probably agree with druff that the censorship of information will probably do more damage than not censoring it.

but i think my point is we're 100% fucked either way.

The old American model was “if you don’t like the product or service stop buying it”

I refuse to accept that just because they are a monopoly you have no choice or some such shit. Have a code. You enable this shit.

[sonatine]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1338680328395907077

absolutely fascinating; lindsey graham just said that the conservative movement cannot survive if voting is made easier or if social media starts to filter disinformation.

He's right.

yeah basically its the ben shapiro special; the whole right wing cant exist without being victims of something. so they just accuse their accusers of whatever they are being called out for and hope it sticks.

and of course, thanks to sites like this, there's an echo chamber for it all which is like synthetic morality for people who are, in their cores, emotionally crippled.

sad.