Trump Idea Flagpole Thread

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump
    22h
    A lot of interest in this story about Psycho Joe Scarborough. So a young marathon runner just happened to faint in his office, hit her head on his desk, & die? I would think there is a lot more to this story than that? An affair? What about the so-called investigator? Read story!

    See if anyone runs with this one!
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    Trump isn't the medical expert. Then again when he surrounds himself with medical experts, he doesn't seem to trust them. I may have to read "Art of the Deal". I thought to be successful in business, one surrounded themselves with experts they trusted. Maybe I would get some insights into why he doesn't fire and hire more.
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    Waiting to see the actual order before drawing any conclusions. It may or may not even come out :)
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,148
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I came to INGO political forum just to see how Trump's supporters are going to defend this

    I wouldn't consider myself a trump supporter per se. But I do have an opinion about it that is less condemning than the apparent goal of this thread seems to be. To me it depends what an executive order would do. When a social media company becomes such an important platform for sharing of information, this gives it extraordinary power to influence elections. The government stepping in to regulate such things is not new. Because it recognized that the press and the same extraordinary power, the FCC implemented the fairness doctrine to ensure a diversity of opinions was presented to the general public. The SCOTUS upheld the FCC's authority to implement the doctrine.

    I see the situation now with social media as very similar. I would not support the government regulating social media's moderation policies except to say that they need to be fair, and that they can't apply a set of standards inequitably. So if Trump makes a comment that sounds conspiratorial, and gets a fact-check badge, then we should expect, say, Adam Schiff to have a similar badge on his claims made on twitter. If twitter ban Alex Jones for spreading wild conspiracies, they should have banned Rachel Maddow.

    Regarding Trump's tweet about mail-in ballots, his wording was conspiratorial but there is also a sentiment communicated in that which is true enough, that mail in ballots would have a higher potential for meddling, coercion, or fraud than voting at physical polls. If Trump had just tweeted that parties could easily abuse mail-in ballots and therefore was opposed to using them, he'd have been fine to say it.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,148
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Waiting to see the actual order before drawing any conclusions. It may or may not even come out :)

    Trump has been threatening to shut down the press almost since he got in office. It's just part of the shtick.

    I wouldn't mind if he reinstated the FCC's fairness doctrine, and also something similar to that for social media. Democracy is highly hackable by those who control information, so decentralization of information such to ensure diversity is important to maintaining a healthy democracy. It's of high individual importance to ensure information isn't used to exploit the aggregate public will.
     

    printcraft

    INGO Clown
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Feb 14, 2008
    38,993
    113
    Uranus
    jackoff.gif~c200
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,058
    77
    Southside Indy
    Here we go. Tweet master at it again.

    Trump tweets Antifa will be labeled a terrorist organization

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-antifa-protests/index.html

    And CNN and the ACLU have it wrong. Again. It's been done before.

    "The FBI classified the WUO as a domestic terrorist group,[SUP][5][/SUP] with revolutionary positions characterized by black power and opposition to the Vietnam War.[SUP][2][/SUP] The WUO took part in domestic attacks such as the jailbreak of Timothy Leary in 1970.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] The "Days of Rage" was the WUO's first riot in October 1969 in Chicago, timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven. In 1970, the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government under the name "Weather Underground Organization".[SUP][8]"

    [/SUP]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    I want to make clear I am not disputing whether or not anyone is a "domestic terrorist group" as we all think of it, clearly terrorist acts are being committed during these riots. However, the article cited by Wikipedia does not seem to use the term "domestic terrorist group" in a legal sense granting the authority to treat a group as such under current law differently as the foreign terrorist designation for organizations such as the Iranian Revolutionary guard. Rather it uses the term colloquially.



    And CNN and the ACLU have it wrong. Again. It's been done before.

    "The FBI classified the WUO as a domestic terrorist group,[SUP][5][/SUP] with revolutionary positions characterized by black power and opposition to the Vietnam War.[SUP][2][/SUP] The WUO took part in domestic attacks such as the jailbreak of Timothy Leary in 1970.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] The "Days of Rage" was the WUO's first riot in October 1969 in Chicago, timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven. In 1970, the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government under the name "Weather Underground Organization".[SUP][8]"

    [/SUP]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,058
    77
    Southside Indy
    I want to make clear I am not disputing whether or not anyone is a "domestic terrorist group" as we all think of it, clearly terrorist acts are being committed during these riots. However, the article cited by Wikipedia does not seem to use the term "domestic terrorist group" in a legal sense granting the authority to treat a group as such under current law differently as the foreign terrorist designation for organizations such as the Iranian Revolutionary guard. Rather it uses the term colloquially.
    It doesn't say, "The FBI referred to the WUO". It says "The FBI classified the WUO". That's not a colloquialism.
     
    Top Bottom