Facebook Deletes “Donald Trump is Our President” Facebook Fan Page with 3,276,000 Fans!

[JoeB131]

Right, we should tell the truth like Schiff. Remind us again of the evidence he had of Russian collusion. Oh yeah, he didn't have any, but you mental midgets can't quite put 2 and 2 together.

There was a shitload of evidence of Russian Collusion... look at all the Trump Associates going to prison.

The difference with this Ukraine thing is we caught Trump red-handed this time.

 

[DBA]

Right, we should tell the truth like Schiff. Remind us again of the evidence he had of Russian collusion. Oh yeah, he didn't have any, but you mental midgets can't quite put 2 and 2 together.

There was a shitload of evidence of Russian Collusion... look at all the Trump Associates going to prison.

The difference with this Ukraine thing is we caught Trump red-handed this time.

Red handed? You can't possibly be talking about the transcripts that he voluntarily handed over. There is absolutely NOTHING in there that rises to the level of a high crime, which is EXACTLY why the Democrats don't want to vote on impeachment but would rather sneak around behind closed doors and act as if they are actually going through the impeachment process when in reality it is all for show to fool the dumbed down electorate.

 

[CWayne]

Historically the left has never been a champion of free speech. On the contrary, the left has always sought to silence speech. That's what they do.

You mean Joe McCathy was a Democrat? McCarthy ran the greatest anti-free speech crusade in American history with his communist witch hunts. Anyone who had ever attended a communist party gathering, even inadvertently, was accused by his House "UnAmerican Activities Committee". So much for "freedom of association" and "freedom of speech" laws. The government was not only prosecuting people for these things, they did so with the blessing of the Republican Party, under the leadership of a popular Republican President.

So don't try to pretend that the Republican Party has ever been a champion of free speech.

Did Joe McCarthy delete and/or ban whole Op/Ed sections from the newspaper, or did he just foister an environment hostile to communists? Does Facebook now foister an environment hostile to conservatives?

Facebook and Google are private entities and as such, are entitled to control their business. However, they have agreements with the US government AND with the public regarding the kind of content that they permit as a public forum and do so in order to avoid the restrictions of being a 'publisher'.

You attempt to equate those people fighting to have their ideas heard on the world's largest public debate platform with McCarthy is rather disingenuous if not outright dishonest.

 

[CWayne]

Some thought to give when considering the role of Google and Facebook in manipulating the US elections.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Some thought to give when considering the role of Google and Facebook in manipulating the US elections.

The guy is a quack and his “conclusions” are bad enough that they would get an F in an actual stats or analytics class.

 

[CWayne]

Some thought to give when considering the role of Google and Facebook in manipulating the US elections.

The guy is a quack and his “conclusions” are bad enough that they would get an F in an actual stats or analytics class.

Who told you that? Have you sat in any of his seminars? I won't bother to ask if you watched the video.

Perhaps you should contact Standford University about him so that they won't invite him back.

 

[iceberg]

You do realize that Facebook is a private entity and can make their own rules?

So is a bakery.

Unless there is a law

The bakery broke the law

No, they didnt

Business PA law of their state. But I'm guessing you support them doing so, right?

It really doesnt make any sense explaining it. No matter how many times someone says they were exercising a religious belief, the left will never accept it.

The left believes that everyone should accept their ideas, even if it goes against ones personal or religious value system.

However, again, they refused because their religious beliefs made them feel like baking a cake specifically for a same sex wedding was akin to them participating. They did not refuse service, as they stated they would have sold them a cake that was already made, but they would not bake a cake specifically for the ceremony.

and that was my point. it is a huge dual standard to say "don't use facebook if it doesn't meet your needs" and then get ass whiney when someone doesn't want to make a cake for their own reasons.

which is it? can't be both OR situational.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Some thought to give when considering the role of Google and Facebook in manipulating the US elections.

The guy is a quack and his “conclusions” are bad enough that they would get an F in an actual stats or analytics class.

Who told you that? Have you sat in any of his seminars? I won't bother to ask if you watched the video.

Perhaps you should contact Standford University about him so that they won't invite him back.

Nobody told me, I read his work on this and the previous “study” that he based these results on. Doing so it became obvious he is a psychologists trying to play analyst and failing.

His “results” have never been replicated by any other study, which is vital.

His conclusions stem from a “study” of 95 people in which he concluded that if there are two completely unknown candidates running for an office, the one that gets the better search results gets more votes. (Pretty much a “no shit” result). His failure lies in that he took those same results and applied them to the election of two of the best known people in the country.

Colleges love to have quacks come talk

 

[CWayne]

Some thought to give when considering the role of Google and Facebook in manipulating the US elections.

The guy is a quack and his “conclusions” are bad enough that they would get an F in an actual stats or analytics class.

Who told you that? Have you sat in any of his seminars? I won't bother to ask if you watched the video.

Perhaps you should contact Standford University about him so that they won't invite him back.

Nobody told me, I read his work on this and the previous “study” that he based these results on. Doing so it became obvious he is a psychologists trying to play analyst and failing.

His “results” have never been replicated by any other study, which is vital.

His conclusions stem from a “study” of 95 people in which he concluded that if there are two completely unknown candidates running for an office, the one that gets the better search results gets more votes. (Pretty much a “no shit” result). His failure lies in that he took those same results and applied them to the election of two of the best known people in the country.

Colleges love to have quacks come talk

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Some thought to give when considering the role of Google and Facebook in manipulating the US elections.

The guy is a quack and his “conclusions” are bad enough that they would get an F in an actual stats or analytics class.

Who told you that? Have you sat in any of his seminars? I won't bother to ask if you watched the video.

Perhaps you should contact Standford University about him so that they won't invite him back.

Nobody told me, I read his work on this and the previous “study” that he based these results on. Doing so it became obvious he is a psychologists trying to play analyst and failing.

His “results” have never been replicated by any other study, which is vital.

His conclusions stem from a “study” of 95 people in which he concluded that if there are two completely unknown candidates running for an office, the one that gets the better search results gets more votes. (Pretty much a “no shit” result). His failure lies in that he took those same results and applied them to the election of two of the best known people in the country.

Colleges love to have quacks come talk

Thanks for your opinion.

I do my best to educate the unwashed masses!

 

[Lesh]

I think you ought to boycott FACEBOOK if this bothers you

 

[bodecea]

And they both must follow PA laws.
For example, Facebook cannot kick people out for being gay or black or a certain religion.

PA laws are a leftist abomination that routinely violates the inalienable rights of the people, most especially those who reject sexual depravity. What are you babbling about?

What have you actively done to have the PA laws in your state repealed? It can be done if you make the effort, you know. And whining on social media isn't all that effective.

I don't live in PA, .

Priceless.....you take the time to comment on PA laws without even knowing what they are....PA = Public Accomodation laws......

No. You braying jackass. PA is an abbreviation for Pennsylvania. Given the context of the OP and the abbreviation for Pennsylvania it made perfect sense to assume you were talking about the public accommodation code of Pennsylvania, which is known to be especially intrusive, especially since some states have laws requiring social platforms owned by businesses based in their states to follow certain rules regarding both hiring and platform content.

It is both...but we weren't talking about Pennsylvania...we were talking about Public Accommodation laws such as those that those bigoted cake bakers were breaking. Context, my friend, context.

 

[bodecea]

I stand by my original point. None of that has anything to do with the First Amendment. The Trumpster claiming it does are dangerously stupid. They need to be stopped.

So you agree that Google and Facebook are not entitled to ...

So you agree it's not a First Amendment issue?

It is a First Amendment issue! How is it not, given the reason for Section 230 in the first place? How is standard political speech offensive or indecent? And why are you avoiding the obvious point of my observation? Google and Facebook should be stripped of the protection. Period. That's the only constitutional remedy if they are not gong to abide by the law affording them the protection. Those demanding they be stripped of that special, extra-constitutional protection, like Trump, understand constitutional law just fine.

This is the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Now...show us where it covers private businesses. Talk about obvious..........

 

[bodecea]

You do realize that Facebook is a private entity and can make their own rules?

So is a bakery.

Unless there is a law

The bakery broke the law

No, they didnt

Business PA law of their state. But I'm guessing you support them doing so, right?

It really doesnt make any sense explaining it. No matter how many times someone says they were exercising a religious belief, the left will never accept it.

The left believes that everyone should accept their ideas, even if it goes against ones personal or religious value system.

However, again, they refused because their religious beliefs made them feel like baking a cake specifically for a same sex wedding was akin to them participating. They did not refuse service, as they stated they would have sold them a cake that was already made, but they would not bake a cake specifically for the ceremony.

If someone can claim religious beliefs when ignoring one business law (PA law) they were supposed to follow when getting their business license....what's to stop them claiming religious beliefs when ignoring other business laws....like health laws...like safety laws?

 

[easyt65]

Once again, Facebook attacks the 1st Amendment censoring Trump supporters.

CRIMINAL Facebook Deletes "Donald Trump is Our President" Facebook Fan Page with 3,276,000 Fans!

Probably the greatest benefit resulting from the treasonous coup being attempted by the Trump-hating Liberal extremists and Democrats is the Democracy / Free-Speech Hating, intolerant, 'enemy-of-the-state' traitors being exposed....

 

[bodecea]

So is a bakery.

Unless there is a law

The bakery broke the law

No, they didnt

Business PA law of their state. But I'm guessing you support them doing so, right?

It really doesnt make any sense explaining it. No matter how many times someone says they were exercising a religious belief, the left will never accept it.

The left believes that everyone should accept their ideas, even if it goes against ones personal or religious value system.

However, again, they refused because their religious beliefs made them feel like baking a cake specifically for a same sex wedding was akin to them participating. They did not refuse service, as they stated they would have sold them a cake that was already made, but they would not bake a cake specifically for the ceremony.

and that was my point. it is a huge dual standard to say "don't use facebook if it doesn't meet your needs" and then get ass whiney when someone doesn't want to make a cake for their own reasons.

which is it? can't be both OR situational.

Can Facebook ignore business laws?

 

[Mac-7]

Historically the left has never been a champion of free speech. On the contrary, the left has always sought to silence speech. That's what they do.

You do realize that Facebook is a private entity and can make their own rules?

Standard Oil was a private company too

Yet the federal government asserted authority over them based on a fairness issue

 

[dblack]

I stand by my original point. None of that has anything to do with the First Amendment. The Trumpster claiming it does are dangerously stupid. They need to be stopped.

So you agree that Google and Facebook are not entitled to ...

So you agree it's not a First Amendment issue?

It is a First Amendment issue! How is it not, given the reason for Section 230 in the first place? How is standard political speech offensive or indecent? And why are you avoiding the obvious point of my observation? Google and Facebook should be stripped of the protection. Period. That's the only constitutional remedy if they are not gong to abide by the law affording them the protection. Those demanding they be stripped of that special, extra-constitutional protection, like Trump, understand constitutional law just fine.

This is the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Now...show us where it covers private businesses. Talk about obvious..........

It's not a First Amendment issue unless the government tries to pass laws violating free speech. If, for example, the big-government Trumpsters get their way and we use the law to control the content of privately owned websites - that would be a violation of the First and an honest Court would strike down such laws.

 

[progressive hunter]

I stand by my original point. None of that has anything to do with the First Amendment. The Trumpster claiming it does are dangerously stupid. They need to be stopped.

So you agree that Google and Facebook are not entitled to ...

So you agree it's not a First Amendment issue?

It is a First Amendment issue! How is it not, given the reason for Section 230 in the first place? How is standard political speech offensive or indecent? And why are you avoiding the obvious point of my observation? Google and Facebook should be stripped of the protection. Period. That's the only constitutional remedy if they are not gong to abide by the law affording them the protection. Those demanding they be stripped of that special, extra-constitutional protection, like Trump, understand constitutional law just fine.

This is the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Now...show us where it covers private businesses. Talk about obvious..........

It's not a First Amendment issue unless the government tries to pass laws violating free speech. If, for example, the big-government Trumpsters get their way and we use the law to control the content of privately owned websites - that would be a violation of the First and an honest Court would strike down such laws.

as usual you are dead wrong,,,

 

[dblack]

So you agree that Google and Facebook are not entitled to ...

So you agree it's not a First Amendment issue?

It is a First Amendment issue! How is it not, given the reason for Section 230 in the first place? How is standard political speech offensive or indecent? And why are you avoiding the obvious point of my observation? Google and Facebook should be stripped of the protection. Period. That's the only constitutional remedy if they are not gong to abide by the law affording them the protection. Those demanding they be stripped of that special, extra-constitutional protection, like Trump, understand constitutional law just fine.

This is the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Now...show us where it covers private businesses. Talk about obvious..........

It's not a First Amendment issue unless the government tries to pass laws violating free speech. If, for example, the big-government Trumpsters get their way and we use the law to control the content of privately owned websites - that would be a violation of the First and an honest Court would strike down such laws.

as usual you are dead wrong,,,

Good answer, good answer.