packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Liberalism now means you can cancel your customer's insurance if you disagree with them politically. Yay, Democrats!

---

What type of insurance was it and was it personal or his business (he said "we").
In general, this one concerns me far more tham social media as certain types of insurance are critical. But I don't know enough specifics about this situation. I didnt even know he was a media personality now

---

He's been really outspoken in the past, in an intentionally inflammatory way, about both political and sports stuff.

Calling MLB baseball players "dumbasses" and "*******s," picking fights with people about political stuff, etc.

This wasn't just about him saying he supported the rioters last week. There's a history.

---

What the **** does that have to do with insurance coverage?

---

AIG doesn't want to do business with his (presumably) business anymore because they don't align with his public image.

Again, this seemed to be the straw or at least branch that broke the camel's back.

He tweeted transphobic remarks and got suspended from his job as commentator. Then he tweeted anti-Muslim rhetoric and got fired completely from ESPN. Then he has profane rants directed towards current MLB players about trivial sports matters. Then he tweets support for the rioters. It's on and on with him.

The man walks around with a flame thrower looking for gas cans to ignite.

It's dumb and disingenuous to do that and then be all "What, poor little old conservative MEEE? What did I do?"

He didn't get dropped for a thoughtful, eloquently penned essay in support of the Second Amendment, or of a strong military.

He got dropped for having a very visible, very trashy, very inflammatory online persona.

There are thoughtful ways to express conservative views that would never in a million years get you you canceled. Conservatives do themselves no favors by picking trashy, inflammatory ass-hats like Trump and Schilling to cry foul about "censorship" of conservative views.

Just like with a scientific study, you've got to control for the multi variable situation. If people getting canceled are trashy, inflammatory, and conservative, roll some dudes out there that are just plain conservative and see if they get cancelled too. That way you're controlling for whether the others got canceled for being trashy and inflammatory or for being conservative.

I've been consistent on here saying the same thing about the Republican nomination in 2024. Nikki Haley will get treated completely different than Trump. Why is that? She's conservative too. Granted, she's conservative without being a trashy, inflammatory, petulant child. Maybe that will make a difference?

---

It's remarkable how you justify this based on absolutely nothing regarding insurance. Lol. Literally nothing you said has anything to do with insurance. A lot of words to try and smear him because you are fine with him losing his insurance, but nothing that has an iota to do with insurance


Can rational people imagine your health insurance being able to drop you from coverage because they don't like your tweets? That is sheer lunacy. Not that health insurance happened here, but why not? Apparently the threshold is if they think you make a (as determined by their online police force) visible, trashy, and inflammatory online posts, they can drop your insurance at any time.

---

It doesn't have anything to do with insurance. It has to do with image. This isn't news.

And yes, service providers of all types have terms of service addressing client conduct in their client agreements. I would bet my life that Schilling violated the terms of service of his contract with AIG with his conduct.

In the Service Agreement I have for a real estate service we provide a group of clients, we have the following clause in the Termination section:

"We may immediately terminate this Agreement by giving you written notice in the event...your conduct or the conduct of your employees or guests become incompatible with ordinary [service use] or is otherwise detrimental to [our business] or our reputation..."

The relevancy of client misconduct to the business service we're providing them is discussed but there's an additional clause that gives us broad latitude to address their conduct if we think it may impair our reputation. Most companies have similar terms.

AIG had an image problem with Schilling, not an insurance problem.

---

More utter nonsense. AIG did not have an image problem with Schilling. That is just plain stupidity. Nobody even knew he had insurance with them until they canceled his. Additionally, you really don't want to go down that ridiculous road of "image problem" determining who can buy your services. Your duplicity will be quite apparent.

---

It doesn't matter if you don't think that AIG has an image problem with Schilling. That's their call to make, not yours or mine.

Personally I don't care how AIG runs their business as long as they're doing it legally.

Also, we're getting one side of the story, the flamethrower's. We'll never know AIG's side.

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Liberalism now means you can cancel your customer's insurance if you disagree with them politically. Yay, Democrats!

---

What type of insurance was it and was it personal or his business (he said "we").
In general, this one concerns me far more tham social media as certain types of insurance are critical. But I don't know enough specifics about this situation. I didnt even know he was a media personality now

---

He's been really outspoken in the past, in an intentionally inflammatory way, about both political and sports stuff.

Calling MLB baseball players "dumbasses" and "*******s," picking fights with people about political stuff, etc.

This wasn't just about him saying he supported the rioters last week. There's a history.

---

What the **** does that have to do with insurance coverage?

---

AIG doesn't want to do business with his (presumably) business anymore because they don't align with his public image.

Again, this seemed to be the straw or at least branch that broke the camel's back.

He tweeted transphobic remarks and got suspended from his job as commentator. Then he tweeted anti-Muslim rhetoric and got fired completely from ESPN. Then he has profane rants directed towards current MLB players about trivial sports matters. Then he tweets support for the rioters. It's on and on with him.

The man walks around with a flame thrower looking for gas cans to ignite.

It's dumb and disingenuous to do that and then be all "What, poor little old conservative MEEE? What did I do?"

He didn't get dropped for a thoughtful, eloquently penned essay in support of the Second Amendment, or of a strong military.

He got dropped for having a very visible, very trashy, very inflammatory online persona.

There are thoughtful ways to express conservative views that would never in a million years get you you canceled. Conservatives do themselves no favors by picking trashy, inflammatory ass-hats like Trump and Schilling to cry foul about "censorship" of conservative views.

Just like with a scientific study, you've got to control for the multi variable situation. If people getting canceled are trashy, inflammatory, and conservative, roll some dudes out there that are just plain conservative and see if they get cancelled too. That way you're controlling for whether the others got canceled for being trashy and inflammatory or for being conservative.

I've been consistent on here saying the same thing about the Republican nomination in 2024. Nikki Haley will get treated completely different than Trump. Why is that? She's conservative too. Granted, she's conservative without being a trashy, inflammatory, petulant child. Maybe that will make a difference?

---

It's remarkable how you justify this based on absolutely nothing regarding insurance. Lol. Literally nothing you said has anything to do with insurance. A lot of words to try and smear him because you are fine with him losing his insurance, but nothing that has an iota to do with insurance


Can rational people imagine your health insurance being able to drop you from coverage because they don't like your tweets? That is sheer lunacy. Not that health insurance happened here, but why not? Apparently the threshold is if they think you make a (as determined by their online police force) visible, trashy, and inflammatory online posts, they can drop your insurance at any time.

---

It doesn't have anything to do with insurance. It has to do with image. This isn't news.

And yes, service providers of all types have terms of service addressing client conduct in their client agreements. I would bet my life that Schilling violated the terms of service of his contract with AIG with his conduct.

In the Service Agreement I have for a real estate service we provide a group of clients, we have the following clause in the Termination section:

"We may immediately terminate this Agreement by giving you written notice in the event...your conduct or the conduct of your employees or guests become incompatible with ordinary [service use] or is otherwise detrimental to [our business] or our reputation..."

The relevancy of client misconduct to the business service we're providing them is discussed but there's an additional clause that gives us broad latitude to address their conduct if we think it may impair our reputation. Most companies have similar terms.

AIG had an image problem with Schilling, not an insurance problem.

---

More utter nonsense. AIG did not have an image problem with Schilling. That is just plain stupidity. Nobody even knew he had insurance with them until they canceled his. Additionally, you really don't want to go down that ridiculous road of "image problem" determining who can buy your services. Your duplicity will be quite apparent.

---

It doesn't matter if you don't think that AIG has an image problem with Schilling. That's their call to make, not yours or mine.

Personally I don't care how AIG runs their business as long as they're doing it legally.

Also, we're getting one side of the story, the flamethrower's. We'll never know AIG's side.

---

You don't even need to hear their side. Lol.

It's also rather telling how none of the major media companies have picked up his story. Maoism in America. It has begun.

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Liberalism now means you can cancel your customer's insurance if you disagree with them politically. Yay, Democrats!

---

What type of insurance was it and was it personal or his business (he said "we").
In general, this one concerns me far more tham social media as certain types of insurance are critical. But I don't know enough specifics about this situation. I didnt even know he was a media personality now

---

He's been really outspoken in the past, in an intentionally inflammatory way, about both political and sports stuff.

Calling MLB baseball players "dumbasses" and "*******s," picking fights with people about political stuff, etc.

This wasn't just about him saying he supported the rioters last week. There's a history.

---

That's why the details matter to me. I can't really make a determination until I know more. But If this is his personal Car or Home insurance, how is AIG impacted by his views? His posts have no relation at all to those coverages, which are critical for financial well being.
Life insurance I could see removing if he was posting about heading to the capital ready to fight in the civil war because that affects his policy directly (increased death risk). But I have not checked on what he's said.

Social Media is different for me because you are posting your views directly on their platform and therefore every other user is impacted by them hosting your views. His social media isn't AIG's website.

---

Yeah There was some reference to Schilling's entity (whoever had the insurance) being AAA rated and not having filed a claim for 17 years. Sounded like commercial insurance but I don't know for sure.

---

If it's commercial, and his business is media, I can start to see this. My guess is it would be liability insurance and he's covered for libel and defamation damage. If that is the case, it's appropriate to terminate over a rancorous Social Media presence

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Liberalism now means you can cancel your customer's insurance if you disagree with them politically. Yay, Democrats!

---

What type of insurance was it and was it personal or his business (he said "we").
In general, this one concerns me far more tham social media as certain types of insurance are critical. But I don't know enough specifics about this situation. I didnt even know he was a media personality now

---

He's been really outspoken in the past, in an intentionally inflammatory way, about both political and sports stuff.

Calling MLB baseball players "dumbasses" and "*******s," picking fights with people about political stuff, etc.

This wasn't just about him saying he supported the rioters last week. There's a history.

---

That's why the details matter to me. I can't really make a determination until I know more. But If this is his personal Car or Home insurance, how is AIG impacted by his views? His posts have no relation at all to those coverages, which are critical for financial well being.
Life insurance I could see removing if he was posting about heading to the capital ready to fight in the civil war because that affects his policy directly (increased death risk). But I have not checked on what he's said.

Social Media is different for me because you are posting your views directly on their platform and therefore every other user is impacted by them hosting your views. His social media isn't AIG's website.

---

Yeah There was some reference to Schilling's entity (whoever had the insurance) being AAA rated and not having filed a claim for 17 years. Sounded like commercial insurance but I don't know for sure.

---

If it's commercial, and his business is media, I can start to see this. My guess is it would be liability insurance and he's covered for libel and defamation damage. If that is the case, it's appropriate to terminate over a rancorous Social Media presence

---

Lol. Sure thing.

Signed,
Jemelle Hill, Shaun King, Keith Olberman, Bromani Jones, sjwetc

It's because he's conservative.

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Liberalism now means you can cancel your customer's insurance if you disagree with them politically. Yay, Democrats!

---

What type of insurance was it and was it personal or his business (he said "we").
In general, this one concerns me far more tham social media as certain types of insurance are critical. But I don't know enough specifics about this situation. I didnt even know he was a media personality now

---

He's been really outspoken in the past, in an intentionally inflammatory way, about both political and sports stuff.

Calling MLB baseball players "dumbasses" and "*******s," picking fights with people about political stuff, etc.

This wasn't just about him saying he supported the rioters last week. There's a history.

---

That's why the details matter to me. I can't really make a determination until I know more. But If this is his personal Car or Home insurance, how is AIG impacted by his views? His posts have no relation at all to those coverages, which are critical for financial well being.
Life insurance I could see removing if he was posting about heading to the capital ready to fight in the civil war because that affects his policy directly (increased death risk). But I have not checked on what he's said.

Social Media is different for me because you are posting your views directly on their platform and therefore every other user is impacted by them hosting your views. His social media isn't AIG's website.

---

Yeah There was some reference to Schilling's entity (whoever had the insurance) being AAA rated and not having filed a claim for 17 years. Sounded like commercial insurance but I don't know for sure.

---

If it's commercial, and his business is media, I can start to see this. My guess is it would be liability insurance and he's covered for libel and defamation damage. If that is the case, it's appropriate to terminate over a rancorous Social Media presence

---

Lol. Sure thing.

Signed,
Jemelle Hill, Shaun King, Keith Olberman, Bromani Jones, sjwetc

It's because he's conservative.

---

Hey, I guess I missed this. What is this debate about?

Folks, I just listened to a bunch of this hearing... The following are my OPINIONS:

• This division, in our country, was highly polarized during the Obama administration by him
• The Tea Party came around and saw this madness and wanted to push back on this massive divisive commentary
• Nothing changed
• Trump comes on the scene and coalesce's the group that were essentially feeling oppressed[url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coalesce][/url]
• Trump's style really pissed of the oppressors
• In Trumps inauguration speech (I paraphrase) I am going to take this government away from them (pointing at the Capitol) and give back to you (pointing at the people). While they (pointing at the Capitol) were getting RICH, you were taking it on the cheek. Thats going to change!
• From that point forward, the establishment congressional members, from both parties, did everything they could to delegitimize the guy.
• Trump was on the defensive and made to be the enemy of the State

I can tell you this: if I were put in the defensive position he was, from the very beginning, I would fight like Hell! He did and was beaten by his own words.

Now, what do we have?

• Big Tech censoring people in manners we've never seen
• Big Media espousing lies one after the other
• Another Impeachment - the antithesis of Unity
• Black congressional members, in todays hearing, calling Trump and his supporters "White Supremacist"

WOW!!! What an effed up world we live in... Remember, Republicans will have a time for retaliation! That's why I always say to friends and family: be careful what you ask for or do, it can come back to haunt you!

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Folks, I just listened to a bunch of this hearing... The following are my OPINIONS:

• This division, in our country, was highly polarized during the Obama administration by him
• The Tea Party came around and saw this madness and wanted to push back on this massive divisive commentary
• Nothing changed
• Trump comes on the scene and coalesce's the group that were essentially feeling oppressed[url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coalesce][/url]
• Trump's style really pissed of the oppressors
• In Trumps inauguration speech (I paraphrase) I am going to take this government away from them (pointing at the Capitol) and give back to you (pointing at the people). While they (pointing at the Capitol) were getting RICH, you were taking it on the cheek. Thats going to change!
• From that point forward, the establishment congressional members, from both parties, did everything they could to delegitimize the guy.
• Trump was on the defensive and made to be the enemy of the State

I can tell you this: if I were put in the defensive position he was, from the very beginning, I would fight like Hell! He did and was beaten by his own words.

Now, what do we have?

• Big Tech censoring people in manners we've never seen
• Big Media espousing lies one after the other
• Another Impeachment - the antithesis of Unity
• Black congressional members, in todays hearing, calling Trump and his supporters "White Supremacist"

WOW!!! What an effed up world we live in... Remember, Republicans will have a time for retaliation! That's why I always say to friends and family: be careful what you ask for or do, it can come back to haunt you!

---

This is a case of "the empire strikes back". They've been attempting to ever since the beginning of 2016 when Trump came into the first primaries with a head of steam. Now the backlash is not only to Trump but to anyone that might have supported him. Hence the big tech censorship, deletions, shadowbans, etc. The powers that be are trying to choke everyone out and they want to send a message once and for all that this is indeed NOT the free country you thought it was and if you don't play by our rules this is what we can do. OUR message is the only message out there and that message is... you're all racist if you support Trump. And this is of course to deflect the attention off the real problem which is indeed a large class discrepancy.

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

If it's commercial, and his business is media, I can start to see this. My guess is it would be liability insurance and he's covered for libel and defamation damage. If that is the case, it's appropriate to terminate over a rancorous Social Media presence

---

Lol. Sure thing.

Signed,
Jemelle Hill, Shaun King, Keith Olberman, Bromani Jones, sjwetc

It's because he's conservative.

---

There are tens of millions of conservatives out there with Twitter accounts.

If simply being conservative gets you banned, why haven't we seen millions and millions of bannings and cancellations like this?

If Twitter leans the same as the rest of the country, there are around 30 million conservative Twitter users out of the 60 million total accounts.

Where are all the bans?

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Liberalism now means you can cancel your customer's insurance if you disagree with them politically. Yay, Democrats!

---

What type of insurance was it and was it personal or his business (he said "we").
In general, this one concerns me far more tham social media as certain types of insurance are critical. But I don't know enough specifics about this situation. I didnt even know he was a media personality now

---

He's been really outspoken in the past, in an intentionally inflammatory way, about both political and sports stuff.

Calling MLB baseball players "dumbasses" and "*******s," picking fights with people about political stuff, etc.

This wasn't just about him saying he supported the rioters last week. There's a history.

---

That's why the details matter to me. I can't really make a determination until I know more. But If this is his personal Car or Home insurance, how is AIG impacted by his views? His posts have no relation at all to those coverages, which are critical for financial well being.
Life insurance I could see removing if he was posting about heading to the capital ready to fight in the civil war because that affects his policy directly (increased death risk). But I have not checked on what he's said.

Social Media is different for me because you are posting your views directly on their platform and therefore every other user is impacted by them hosting your views. His social media isn't AIG's website.

---

Yeah There was some reference to Schilling's entity (whoever had the insurance) being AAA rated and not having filed a claim for 17 years. Sounded like commercial insurance but I don't know for sure.

---

If it's commercial, and his business is media, I can start to see this. My guess is it would be liability insurance and he's covered for libel and defamation damage. If that is the case, it's appropriate to terminate over a rancorous Social Media presence

---

Yep. And to my earlier point about not hearing AIG's side, they didn't fire him as a client with a Tweet, without warning, Trump style. There was very likely a process.

My guess is they notified him in advance in writing and gave him a chance to cease and desist with the highly visible flamethrowing and he gave them the middle finger.

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

If it's commercial, and his business is media, I can start to see this. My guess is it would be liability insurance and he's covered for libel and defamation damage. If that is the case, it's appropriate to terminate over a rancorous Social Media presence

---

Lol. Sure thing.

Signed,
Jemelle Hill, Shaun King, Keith Olberman, Bromani Jones, sjwetc

It's because he's conservative.

---

There are tens of millions of conservatives out there with Twitter accounts.

If simply being conservative gets you banned, why haven't we seen millions and millions of bannings and cancellations like this?

If Twitter leans the same as the rest of the country, there are around 30 million conservative Twitter users out of the 60 million total accounts.

Where are all the bans?

---

Why do you keep asking questions? You're fine with silencing contrarian opinion. You literally make up excuses of why it is fine to silence conservatives on social media and deny insurance for conservatives. You don't care because orange man bad. We get it. TDS rules all decisions with the new administration and their loyal followers like you.

Maybe we should use your tens of millions analogy with BLM too, huh? Lol.

From the Blaze...

The text of the apparent AIG communication states: "Unfortunately, the underwriter was unable to accept my request. I also went up the chain of ... command and asked our AIG Marketing Representative for an exception, but unfortunately he was unable to grant one. He realized that you were a longtime AIG client since 2004 and also a profitable account (no claims), but it was a management decision that was made collectively between underwriting and marketing teams that could not be overturned."

This sounds precisely like what ISE was saying earlier.

Underwriters assess client or deal risk, so if underwriting red-flagged him it was because his business or behavior had an intolerable risk profile for AIG to stomach.

AIG was being exposed financially in some way by his conduct and they made a business decision to fire him as a client.

Him simply being 'conservative' doesn't increase their risk of having to pay out a claim.

No it sounds more like Democrats have cover to silence the deplorables. As evidenced by the social media companies, the new government wanting to create lists of Trump supporters, and the divisive rhetoric from the incoming president/Democrat congresspeople.

Civilized said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Folks, I just listened to a bunch of this hearing... The following are my OPINIONS:

• This division, in our country, was highly polarized during the Obama administration by him
• The Tea Party came around and saw this madness and wanted to push back on this massive divisive commentary
• Nothing changed
• Trump comes on the scene and coalesce's the group that were essentially feeling oppressed[url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coalesce][/url]
• Trump's style really pissed of the oppressors
• In Trumps inauguration speech (I paraphrase) I am going to take this government away from them (pointing at the Capitol) and give back to you (pointing at the people). While they (pointing at the Capitol) were getting RICH, you were taking it on the cheek. Thats going to change!
• From that point forward, the establishment congressional members, from both parties, did everything they could to delegitimize the guy.
• Trump was on the defensive and made to be the enemy of the State

I can tell you this: if I were put in the defensive position he was, from the very beginning, I would fight like Hell! He did and was beaten by his own words.

Now, what do we have?

• Big Tech censoring people in manners we've never seen
• Big Media espousing lies one after the other
• Another Impeachment - the antithesis of Unity
• Black congressional members, in todays hearing, calling Trump and his supporters "White Supremacist"

WOW!!! What an effed up world we live in... Remember, Republicans will have a time for retaliation! That's why I always say to friends and family: be careful what you ask for or do, it can come back to haunt you!

---

What "massive divisive commentary" did Obama have? His whole legacy is divisive. He is a protege of Sal Alinsky. You and I probably don't see this the same, probably the same way you and I don't see Trump the same

What group was feeling oppressed? Tea Party people that became MAGA people

Who are the oppressors? The big three Oligarch's

What could Trump have actually done, or what did he do in practice, to reduce the power of the legislature and hand more power back to the people? He can't. That's not the way our constitution structured our government

Why would legislators have anything to fear from Trump such that they would need to delegitimize him else they suffer some harm? Power, money, and losing one of the big three Oligarch's

---

Civ, are your questions even real or are you trolling? Nonetheless, I answered...

Please don't ever say we didn't have election fraud in this past election!!! It take courage for an AG to do something like this...

This is what we have seen for a long time. Now they will feel emboldened...

Please don't confuse the "peaceful protesters" with GOP scum!!!! LMAO.....the party of hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Somehow Trump got a video on youtube last night once again denouncing anyone involved in the criminal activities last week, and warning against the dangers of censorship. It was a good message and one that was needed at this time of course no one will see it b/c I happened to find it on youtube but I'm sure it is deleted by now. No network will air it. But none the less he also denounced any intent to commit more acts against capitols on inauguration day.

Ultimately none of this matters b/c the first response out of DC is to blame the president for all of it and whip up a quick impeachment in the house. Because of this the temperature will not cool but indeed I anticipate there will be violence next week. The chances are much higher b/c of the actions taken since last Wednesday. It's a damn shame.

ncsualum05 said:

---

Somehow Trump got a video on youtube last night once again denouncing anyone involved in the criminal activities last week, and warning against the dangers of censorship. It was a good message and one that was needed at this time of course no one will see it b/c I happened to find it on youtube but I'm sure it is deleted by now. No network will air it. But none the less he also denounced any intent to commit more acts against capitols on inauguration day.

Ultimately none of this matters b/c the first response out of DC is to blame the president for all of it and whip up a quick impeachment in the house. Because of this the temperature will not cool but indeed I anticipate there will be violence next week. The chances are much higher b/c of the actions taken since last Wednesday. It's a damn shame.

---

Wanting people to give Trump credit for trotting out that video after deadly riots that his months of lies fueled reminds me of that Chris Rock bit about bragging about things that you're supposed to do.

"I take care of my kids!!" LOLOL

ncsualum05 said:

---

And can we stop with the Trump lies thing? Compared to what? Biden lies every time he opens his mouth and so do most of the other politicians. Spare me.

---

Compared to what??

Compared to humans. LOLOL

Why are you talking about Biden and the SJ riots?

Was he president when they were going on?

Did the rioters turn up in cities because he asked them to?

Most importantly, did he tweet bold-faced lies to the rioters multiple times daily for six months, completely fabricating the whole reason for the riots?

I love how someone that's offended by Trumps lies has to lie about what Trump did. Lol.

packgrad said:

---

I love how someone that's offended by Trumps lies has to lie about what Trump did. Lol.

---

What part of what I said was a lie?

Why even bother to answer civ? He has conflated the truth and refuses to acknowledge that Trump never instigated the riots or led them in any way.

packgrad said:

---

---

The fact either of these two clowns have jobs shows you where the media and their DNC leaders want to take this country. Dandy Don Lemon should have been fired for his sexual assault up in the Catskills. Why wan't he even reprimanded? The lawsuit is still active and the investigation hasn't been concluded. Oh....I forget.... He has the magic "do no wrong D" beside his name. Two years of crap like that and you'll see a country more divided than in in the Civil War. That's not rhetoric. That's a damn fact.

Civilized said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

And can we stop with the Trump lies thing? Compared to what? Biden lies every time he opens his mouth and so do most of the other politicians. Spare me.

---

Compared to what??

Compared to humans. LOLOL

Why are you talking about Biden and the SJ riots?

Was he president when they were going on?

Did the rioters turn up in cities because he asked them to?

Most importantly, did he tweet bold-faced lies to the rioters multiple times daily for six months, completely fabricating the whole reason for the riots?

---

Last time I'll respond to this and then I'll move on.

No Biden was not president... he was the democrat party candidate for president and in his words... the leader of the democrat party. His words. The democrats made it clear that they were not going to work with Trump on any legislation to help nor were they going to do anything to tamp down the temperature of all the left wing violence that ensued from May until basically the election. He had a duty as the head of that party to call on his own party to work to punish rioters and stop the violence. He had a duty to work with president Trump and rise above everyone else's fighting in DC. No he did not ask for people to riot... he simply looked the other way or denied it was happening as did most of his colleagues.

And most of that is not his fault because the truth he is not the leader of the party nor does he have a full sound mind right now to make his own decisions and stand up for himself. And the fact is he wouldn't have won that election without massive mail in voting which invited fraud. We're moving on but that doesn't change the fact that it was an illegitmate election. Violence isn't the answer but the bed has been made.

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

If it's commercial, and his business is media, I can start to see this. My guess is it would be liability insurance and he's covered for libel and defamation damage. If that is the case, it's appropriate to terminate over a rancorous Social Media presence

---

Lol. Sure thing.

Signed,
Jemelle Hill, Shaun King, Keith Olberman, Bromani Jones, sjwetc

It's because he's conservative.

---

There are tens of millions of conservatives out there with Twitter accounts.

If simply being conservative gets you banned, why haven't we seen millions and millions of bannings and cancellations like this?

If Twitter leans the same as the rest of the country, there are around 30 million conservative Twitter users out of the 60 million total accounts.

Where are all the bans?

---

Three points to this
1) How do you know when someone is banned? I have a very vocal conservative friend who lost close to a thousand followers during the purge. That is about the only way I know to track it.
2) The out spoken conservatives with power are the ones they are going after
3) I do not know how anyone cannot be concerned about how tech is determining outcomes of elections. Way too much power in their hands.

packgrad said:

---

---

Mast's response is spot on.