cowboypack02 said:
Civilized said:
hokiewolf said:
Ok, let's take Trump out of it and I'll give you another example. Bret Weinstein on his podcast started a grass roots political campaign to provide a 3rd party alternative candidate because like me, he was un happy with the two mainstream party candidates. Twitter suspended their account for bogus reasons.
https://articlesofunity.org/2020/09/press-release-for-our-twitter-ban/
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/516088-grassroots-activist-describes-frustration-with-twitter-over-account-suspension
It is still suspended today and you cannot share any links to Articles of unity on Twitter.
Are you still ok with the seemingly arbitrary suspension of an account created by a grass roots movement to create a third party by a tech platform thereby hobbling their efforts to present an alternative candidate that potentially would have siphoned voters from Joe Biden?
No I'm not OK with it.
To be clear I'm not OK with Trump's social media ban.
I'm also not OK with his incredibly dangerous stolen election lie or more generally his historical propensity for making **** up because reality doesn't suit him.
I don't have the answer to reconcile those two conflicting realities.
Democrats did this for 4 years with no bans or issues. there was even a trending hashtag for the longest time #notmypresident
Nancy Pelosi said the election was fraudulent in 2016...she never got banned
Chuck Schumer said that the election was fraudulent in 2016....he never got banned.
Isn't that incredibly dangerous as well that two of the highest ranking democrats have said for years that the 2016 election was stolen? Why do they still get to have social media accounts? You can't say its because of what happened on 1-6-2021.....the democrats damn near burned down DC on 1-20-2017 while protesting Trump being inaugurated. Shouldn't that be considered a threat to democracy as well?
Are you not ok with those two yelling that an election was stolen....i'm just curious because you've never mentioned it before. Social media is obviously ok with one but not the other......
This 'Democrats did this too' analysis fails any reasonable test of intellectual honesty.
The saying 'the dose makes the poison' definitely applies here.
Rough numbers, if I'm in a leadership position of extreme visibility and influence and say something false and potentially dangerous 200 times, and someone else says the same thing once or twice, from a much smaller podium and with significantly less influence, is it accurate to say we "did the same thing"?
How does it impact that analysis if the person saying something 200 times is doing so without any consequential evidence; began saying this thing months before the event in question even took place; and has had 60+ court rulings against the substance of their claim, while investigations into the matter spoken about twice times resulted in prison sentences for lying to investigators; clear bipartisan Congressional committee findings of a directly related, but lesser charge (meddling); there existing clear evidence that such meddling impacted the election; and the lead independent investigator looking into the claims of collusion clearly saying that his investigation did not exonerate the accused?
And that doesn't even address Pelosi and Schumer's lack of standing/influence relative to a normal sitting President (very, very few protestors in DC on Trump's election day could pick them out of a lineup or would even have known what they said); Pelosi's tweet occurring 5 months after the DC inauguration protests; Trump's excessive influence relative even to a normal President (his cult-like influence over some of his followers/worshipers); or Trump's months-long denials even of any Russia meddling or influence on the election (clearly proven false).
So no, Pelosi and Schumer did not 'do this' if by 'this' you mean "saying something false and without evidence hundreds of times over 18 months, with 60+ court rulings that directly contradict their statements; and that resulted in an armed whatever-you-want-to-call-it in the nation's Capitol building, whose perpetrators have since repeatedly invoked their names as inciting them to be there."
)... kind of like asking some people questions on here sometimes. 