Trump Solidifying Control Of His Base, And the Republican Party

[Subduction Zone]

You keep using "comrade". This is very ironic.. due to the fact that if Biden ever did get inaugurated, they would change article 230 and censor anything against the left agenda. Ban more books. Define hate speech.. which.. in the end will censor Christian messages. Free schooling, Free money for the lazy..Free health care.. which will all come from the taxes of the middle class.

Eventually, the great reset.. as Biden's health will cause them to remove him from power and place Harris there. It's all down hill from there and you will not own property.. it will be a socialist agenda.

Where has that ever worked?

And your evidence for this is . . . ?

Buy you are right about the "comrade" bit. What do fellow fascists call each other? Though you do not realize it you are supporting fascism.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You keep using "comrade". This is very ironic.. due to the fact that if Biden ever did get inaugurated, they would change article 230 and censor anything against the left agenda. Ban more books. Define hate speech.. which.. in the end will censor Christian messages. Free schooling, Free money for the lazy..Free health care.. which will all come from the taxes of the middle class.

Eventually, the great reset.. as Biden's health will cause them to remove him from power and place Harris there. It's all down hill from there and you will not own property.. it will be a socialist agenda.

Where has that ever worked?

You left out the part where he throws Christians to the lions and broadcasts it live on CNN.

I will not abide half-hearted fearmongering

 

[cow451]

Mike Pence, as Vice President is president of the Senate, is the one who is to certify the electors. If he doesn't.. well check below.

Go to the 7:00 minute mark of this:

SGOTI says ....

 

[TLK Valentine]

Mike Pence, as Vice President is president of the Senate, is the one who is to certify the electors.

...and he will certify 306 electors for Biden, thus declaring him the 46th President.

Any reason why he wouldn't?

 

[TLK Valentine]

SGOTI says ....

Who needs the Constitution when you've got Youtube?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

...and he will certify 306 electors for Biden, thus declaring him the 46th President.

Any reason why he wouldn't?

The only reason Pence wouldn’t do what he is require to do by law (count the 306 electors for Biden and declare him president) is if Pence is a worse human than Al Gore, Dan Quayle, Walter Mondale, and Richard Nixon who all declared their opponent as president in front of the Senate in 2000, 1992, 1976, and 1960 respectively. For Nixon and Gore it was their direct opponent since both ran for president in their years.

 

[JacksBratt]

A YouTube poster is hardly a reliable source. Make your own arguments. Link to the articles of the Constitution that support you. By the way, there are no "alternate electors". No state has sent any. Look at the rules of how electors are chosen by each state. None of them chose a second set based upon those rules. The "alternates" are just idiots playing dress up.

OK, reject the platform.. Most of the things people hear, watch or believe... comes from a source that is uploaded onto YouTube.

That's why YouTube is panicking to block, remove and demonetize content.. They don't want it used to display the truth, the right.... or anything conservative.. without filtering it..

But.. to you.. it's just a tactic to dismiss.

I have heard the same process from Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and others.

 

[TLK Valentine]

OK, reject the platform.. Most of the things people hear, watch or believe... comes from a source that is uploaded onto YouTube.

That's why YouTube is panicking to block, remove and demonetize content.. They don't want it used to display the truth, the right.... or anything conservative.. without filtering it..

But.. to you.. it's just a tactic to dismiss.

I have heard the same process from Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and others.

One would think you'd learn from the pattern -- actual Constitutional scholars > rando on Youtube.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, reject the platform.. Most of the things people hear, watch or believe... comes from a source that is uploaded onto YouTube.

That's why YouTube is panicking to block, remove and demonetize content.. They don't want it used to display the truth, the right.... or anything conservative.. without filtering it..

But.. to you.. it's just a tactic to dismiss.

I have heard the same process from Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and others.

It is not a worthwhile platform in debates. You need to find a proper source. And no, they are not panicking. They are not an open forum where people can post anything that they want. I guess that they are panicking when they remove inappropriate content since that is not allowed either. They remove content that can be shown to be harmful to others. False and rather moronic claims can harm others as we have seen with the early claims about Covid19. People denying the obvious that Trump got his heinie waxed in the election are harming the country by lowering the faith in the election process. YouTube puts up with a lot of "stupid" but they have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[JacksBratt]

Who needs the Constitution when you've got Youtube?

Well, that's twice.. and I imaging it will grow.

Using YouTube to access actual footage of the Senate, News reports, interviews with credited people... is quite common now.

Listening to Brian Stelter , Don Lemon, Wolf Blitzer, or Rachel Maddow... or even Chris Cuomo state their unsupported ideas and thoughts... on a main stream media show...

Is less credible than a YouTube video of Giulianii, Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, or Lin Wood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that's twice.. and I imaging it will grow.

Using YouTube to access actual footage of the Senate, News reports, interviews with credited people... is quite common now.

Listening to Brian Stelter , Don Lemon, Wolf Blitzer, or Rachel Maddow... or even Chris Cuomo state their unsupported ideas and thoughts... on a main stream media show...

Is less credible than a YouTube video of Giulianii, Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, or Lin Wood.

Has anyone opposing Trump used Rachel Maddow as a source? If so shame on them. But I have not seen it. If you want to use YouTube at least find someone that is a scholar with some credentials in the field that he is speaking on. A random fool is not a reliable source.

What is your source's education? What work has he done in the field? If you cannot answer these questions then you do not know if he is a reliable source and should not have referred to him. By your standards Rachel Maddow is correct. We don't want to go down that road now, do we?

 

[JacksBratt]

It is not a worthwhile platform in debates. You need to find a proper source. And no, they are not panicking. They are not an open forum where people can post anything that they want. I guess that they are panicking when they remove inappropriate content since that is not allowed either. They remove content that can be shown to be harmful to others. False and rather moronic claims can harm others as we have seen with the early claims about Covid19. People denying the obvious that Trump got his heinie waxed in the election are harming the country by lowering the faith in the election process. YouTube puts up with a lot of "stupid" but they have to draw the line somewhere.

YouTube..... is not a source. It's a platform. Just like a solid piece of science can be printed on cardboard, wood, plaster, paper, paper tower or written in the dirt...
The platform is not what is accredited. It's what is contained in the article, video or whatever.

It's not their right to decide what is "harmful to others".... is it?

I mean is that not what happened in all countries before they moved to communism? Some group of people decided that they alone had the right ideas and they deemed themselves to have the right to think FOR YOU as to what you should read or hear.

Just who do you want to think for you? Would you like it if your source deleted any material that hinted at evolution or anything that went counter to the fact that there is a God?

What if all sites started to promote God as real, evolution as false.. and deleted and blocked anything that you would take as fact?

Should any public platform have a small group of people that decide for the masses.. what they should be able to read.. hear.. observe?

A news paper, magazine, or any other edited news source MUST have it's sources well documented so as not to communicate slander or false information..

YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.. are not edited. They are not libel for what is posted.. They are not editors of the content.

Thus.. they should not be censors either.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, that's twice.. and I imaging it will grow.

Using YouTube to access actual footage of the Senate, News reports, interviews with credited people... is quite common now.

Listening to Brian Stelter , Don Lemon, Wolf Blitzer, or Rachel Maddow... or even Chris Cuomo state their unsupported ideas and thoughts... on a main stream media show...

Is less credible than a YouTube video of Giulianii, Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, or Lin Wood.

That's your opinion -- too bad it's not on Youtube.

 

[JacksBratt]

Has anyone opposing Trump used Rachel Maddow as a source? If so shame on them. But I have not seen it. If you want to use YouTube at least find someone that is a scholar with some credentials in the field that he is speaking on. A random fool is not a reliable source.

What is your source's education? What work has he done in the field? If you cannot answer these questions then you do not know if he is a reliable source and should not have referred to him. By your standards Rachel Maddow is correct. We don't want to go down that road now, do we?

Well, he's a PhD.. bet he's no fool...

Sorry that I upset you with Rachel.. but.. she is solidly anti Trump. A quick search will support this valid point.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

YouTube..... is not a source. It's a platform. Just like a solid piece of science can be printed on cardboard, wood, plaster, paper, paper tower or written in the dirt...
The platform is not what is accredited. It's what is contained in the article, video or whatever.

It's not their right to decide what is "harmful to others".... is it?

I mean is that not what happened in all countries before they moved to communism? Some group of people decided that they alone had the right ideas and they deemed themselves to have the right to think FOR YOU as to what you should read or hear.

Just who do you want to think for you? Would you like it if your source deleted any material that hinted at evolution or anything that went counter to the fact that there is a God?

What if all sites started to promote God as real, evolution as false.. and deleted and blocked anything that you would take as fact?

Should any public platform have a small group of people that decide for the masses.. what they should be able to read.. hear.. observe?

A news paper, magazine, or any other edited news source MUST have it's sources well documented so as not to communicate slander or false information..

YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.. are not edited. They are not libel for what is posted.. They are not editors of the content.

Thus.. they should not be censors either.

If YouTube was a government group you may have a point. But YouTube is a private group and they have a right as an American company to decide what is and is not on their platform. Forcing stuff on their platform against their will is starting exactly what you fear, government control of information. If there is information you want out there that YouTube isn’t allowing, free market capitalism allows you to create your own platform to compete against YouTube.

You’ve polluted your mind so much with bad sources they have you arguing to do the very thing you fear. Having the government decide what information corporations have to run, which is just as important as a government deciding which information governments can’t run.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's your opinion -- too bad it's not on Youtube.

Well, not sure if you have kids.. but.. YouTube is no longer a platform just for cat videos and skateboard fails...

Nope.. It is a platform for university and college lectures, news teams, documentaries, movies, government sessions... live... and a whole plethora of solid, founded, accredited sources of information.

More importantly.. YouTube, sadly, is the messenger most commonly shot when it delivers something that people don't want to hear or believe.

More often than not.. if someone is given a YouTube video that contains content contrary to their belief or view.. they will blame YouTube.

 

[Albion]

Has anyone opposing Trump used Rachel Maddow as a source? If so shame on them. But I have not seen it. If you want to use YouTube at least find someone that is a scholar with some credentials in the field that he is speaking on. A random fool is not a reliable source.

Anyone who holds up Rachel Maddow (!) as a topnotch source has destroyed his own argument, all the other details aside.

 

[MIDutch]

The courts have not even looked at the content. The case that Texas brought to the court was dismissed on "standing" which means that Texas was not a victim, as a State.

That's one case. How many have there been again? 60+? Almost 70? And trump's "superstar legal team" has presented convincing evidence in how many of them?

To say that there is no evidence is ignorant.

To pretend that there is evidence when no one has been able to produce anything convincing ... is also ignorant.

I'm sure creationists and flat earthers all think they have evidence. Obviously, trump supporters fall into that self delusion trap as well.

 

[MIDutch]

Anyone who holds up Rachel Maddow (!) as a topnotch source has destroyed his own argument, all the other details aside.

Rachel Maddow ... Rush Limbaugh.

Rachel Maddow ... Alex Jones.

Rachel Maddow ... Ken Ham.

Hmm. So difficult.

Oh, wait. Ken Ham is a different sort of conspiracy theorist, isn't he?

 

[Strathos]

Is there really a point in arguing over this? We'll know what happens in a few weeks.