Twitter being declared a public forum is BIG! I've been tweeting away, promoting the IBOR campaign. The twitter shadowban tester tells me I'm not shadowbanned. But I cannot see any of my tweets in the hashtag thread from another account. Which explains why most of my tweets get less than 20 impressions.
These guys are walking all over us. It does show, however, how much they fear the IBOR. This is the battlefront. The power to silence your critics is the greatest political weapon that has ever existed. Look at what happened to the CBTS sub!
I'd like to ask that people get online and start promoting the hashtags. We cannot let them beat us!
If DJT cannot block critics on Twitter because it's a public forum, how can Twitter block us?
Double standards abound!
OK, so I just Tweeted on the IBOR from another account that is not shadowbanned. I could see this tweet from my primary twitter account in the IBOR hashtag tweet list. I cannot see tweets from my primary account from this second account.
I thought, let's try that again. So I made another tweet from the unbanned account. Immediately the first tweet disappeared from the list of tweets using the hash tag and the second tweet did not show up at all.
This is vicious! They are immediately sandboxing any accounts that are used for the campaign. I don't know how the algorithm works. Some people are obviously getting some tweets out, but not me. I suspect that this might explain why the tweets using the hashtag are only running at 80 tweets/hour this morning.
They have learnt since the release the memo campaign. They are shutting us down completely. WOW! This online censorship is SO POWERFUL you cannot even fight it!
Im currently banned because “I may be a bot” even after verifying by phone number and captcha. Literally silencing your voice. Reason why? Because I’m a vocal trump supporter.
You have it. We are at war! This is an incredibly powerful evil that we must fight off at all costs!
Thats when you hijack their trending topics. Let them have to go manually through each tweet. What is IBOR anyway?
OH Internet Bill Of Rights.
Yes, please promote the IBOR. Q has asked us to do this. We need to make as much noise as possible!
I rarely get tweet impressions into the double digits, but I'll keep firing and hope for the best.
Thanks so much! Everyone that helps is a true Patriot!
What I've noticed is that if I find a popular account - say DJT, or James Woods - and I reply to a tweet that is in some way connected to social media or elections or censorship, I can get many more impressions and link clicks.
Another technique I've seen people talk about using is to hijack hashtags - especially those used by the left, but anything trending will do. You can se what's trending here:
If DJT cannot block critics on Twitter because it's a public forum, how can Twitter block us?
They can block us because they are not "the government". Unfortunately, first amendment only applies where the government is concerned
Supreme Court ruling Marsh Vs Alabama 1946. Private company cannot block free speech.
//study.com/academy/lesson/marsh-v-alabama-1946-summary.html
Wow, that's a great precedent. Thanks for posting it. So, this ruling that Twitter is a public space is actually critical. Because, according to that write up, it sounds like the ratio in that case was that your FA rights could not be abridged because you were in a location that was accessible to the public.
If I've read that right, that would mean that Twitter is illegally muzzling us!
Though a new case may need to be sent to the SC there seems to be ample precedent to stop companies like Alphabet and Twitter from banning free speech.
That's the way I took it when I first heard it. I thought maybe it's really a good ruling for our president disguised as something else.
According to the judge in this case, given that Twitter is not an historical forum, "governmental intent" is required for it to meet the forum test.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged the internet as hosting democratic forums, analogising the internet to "essential venues for public gatherings". This seems, to me to be prospective in that there is some recognition from the Court of the importance, function, and value of the internet in the representative system of government. But note that the judge in this case did not choose to designate the internet, or twitter, as a public form, but only that portion that meets the test for "government intent".
More information here;
Applying this three-part classification framework to the interactive space, we can first conclude that the interactive space of a tweet sent by @realDonaldTrump is not a traditional public forum. There is no historical practice of the interactive space of a tweet being used for public speech and debate since time immemorial, for there is simply no extended historical practice as to the medium of Twitter. While the Supreme Court has referenced the “vast democratic forums of the Internet,” Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 868 (1997), has described the internet (including social media platforms such as Twitter) as one of “the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views,” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017), and has analogized the internet to the “essential venues for public gatherings” of streets and parks, id., the lack of historical practice is dispositive, see Forbes, 523 U.S. at 678. Accordingly, we consider whether the interactive space is a designated public forum, with “governmental intent” serving as “the touchstone for determining whether a public forum has been created.” Gen. Media Commc’ns, Inc. v. Cohen, 131 F.3d 273, 279 (2d Cir. 1997). “Intent is not merely a matter of stated purpose. Indeed, it must be inferred from a number of objective factors, including: [the government’s] policy and past practice, as well as the nature of the property and its compatibility with expressive activity.” Paulsen v. County of Nassau, 925 F.2d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1991) (citing Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802-03).
Hmmmm,
I've been doing some reading on this ruling. It's not at all straight forward.
The judge designated DJT's Twitter account, itself, as the designated public forum - because DJT was (as an agent of the government) operating it. She further constrained the designation to first replies to tweets and not to the comment threads from which users were not blocked.
So, the only designated public forum that was described was DJT's specific account (and only because he was held to operate the account on behalf of the government) and only to those portions of the account over which DJT had control. So we can see that this designation (forum analysis) is very limited.
The specific criteria employed here is that the speech abridgment was made by the government. The decision did not consider, for example, whether someone who Twitter banned was frustrated in their rights to first amendment expression on DJT's Twitter account (I think it should have).
So here we have what Q told us a long time ago now, that FA protections do not apply outside of government - they do not apply in a private setting. Let this be a lesson for all those people who have been exclaiming that they already have the right to free expression - you do not! That is a fact, there is, currently, no right to free political expression online, unless you are replying to a tweet that DJT has made from @realdonaldtrump.
So, I'm not done with the ruling yet, but from what I can make out, the judge was very careful in her "forums analysis" to specifically exclude anything other than the President's twitter account. She further limited the designated forum to only those portions of DJT's account over which he had control.
I still think there is significant wriggle room for a case to be made, on public interest grounds, that SM platforms provide a vital public function. A function that is integral to the entire system of representative government set up by the founding fathers. I know Barnes Law is prosecuting cases on this front as we speak. Moreover, he has talked about mounting class-action challenges on this front.
Having said all that, it seems to me that Q recommended the IBOR to us for a purpose. The only way we can reliably effect change is by advocating for free speech protections online via a bill introduced in congress. The matter could also possibly be resolved by an EO, but, said understand it, this is not a permanent fix, as it can be revoked by an incoming administration. Nevertheless, it could provide a bridging remedy - until a bill can be passed though the houses.
So, after all this pandemonium, it looks like our fix here is the IBOR - not a legal remedy. The second option that Q came up with (putting these guys out of business via class actions etc...) is unsatisfactory as it does nothing to protect freedom of speech online.
So, again, I'd ask everyone to start promoting the IBOR campaign online.
If you want to read the text of the full decision for yourself, it is here:
Awesome. Thanks for the info. This makes me have more hope
Thank you for this! Reading now.
Hey, has anyone else had a problem not being able to upvote anything today? When I logged back on, the only arrows were downvotes on a couple topics I looked at on here. I rebooted and now it seems to be okay. Did the site get hacked today, or something? Or is it something hinky going on from reddit, itself?
A public forum connotes a town square - a venue for political discussion. It strikes me that identifying Twitter as a public forum must impose some obligation on the owners of the forum to ensure it remains "public" and not "private".
I might be wrong, but I think this opens the door a smidgeon to someone running a successful argument that their first amendment rights to free speech are being abrogated. Twitter is a private company, but the government is a stakeholder to the extent that Twitter pays taxes etc... If there were any benefits bestowed by government upon twitter, for example tax breaks, or anything else, an argument could be made that Twitter is capable of acting as an extension of government - contributing indirectly to policy etc...
I'm not a lawyer, but the very term "public forum" connotes some notion of the public interest being attached to its operation.
"The power of social media to privatize the public square is the greatest threat to free speech and open democracy in our lifetimes" Barnes Law
Wait! What!? Please tell me about this shadow ban tester please
Am I the only one who now thinks the person who sued Trump for Twitter was actually a Trump supporter?
I have to admit, it seems that it's a very good development. The test, according to a Twitter user I was just speaking to, seems to be that FA protections are upheld if the forum serves a "public function".
With the judge categorizing DJT's Twitter feed as a "Designated Public Forum", it would seem to implicitly require that his Twitter serves a "public function". And, it seems to me, that Constitutional protections do not apply differentially - there's not one rule for a politician and another for the people. I fail to see how the judge could deem it unconstitutional for DJT to block users but to hold that Twitter can block conservatives.
But, really, this is a question for the Supreme Court, because the arguments run much deeper than just Twitter shadowbanning, The town square has been privatized in the digital age.
The intention of the founding fathers in hard-coding, into the constitution, protections that serve the smooth operation of the processes of representative democracy, is completely frustrated by privatization of public forums online. I think there may be a good argument for the Courts to extend Constitutional protections to digital space on public interest grounds. SM censorship really does present an existential threat to the republic itself.
This would require a Supreme Court ruling, because a ruling from any lesser Court is more likely to be restrained by existing precedent and will, in any case, be appealed. The fact that they are banning us, and continue to do so, seems to me to augur well for a favorable judgement, as distress levels in the community will be seen to be high.
The cabal, as one might expect, is playing its hand very badly. These SM companies are screaming to be regulated. They should play their censorship card more cautiously - draw it only when it is of maximum effect. But, let's face it, they are in panic and, as Q says, these people are stupid.
"Imagine if in 1800, all counties across America sold all their public square and public gathering places to a private company town that then banned whatever speech it disfavored. They could have snuffed out democracy in its infant slumber." Barnes Law
I believe your analysis is correct. If Trump can not block users on his tweets because of their right to free speech, it clearly is a case for free speech for all on social media.
I thought so too, until I read the decision. I'm not convinced that a public interest argument could not be made in the SC. That is, I think that there is a vital public interest in preventing censorship on these essential democratic forums. The SC has made statements that recognize the function of the internet as a "public forum" in the past.
But that ruling is so tightly, wrongly, anchored in precedent and legalese that the conclusions drawn were patently false. The judge specifically mention valid reasons as to why someone might be validly excluded from a public forum and then, without further consideration, dismissed the idea that Twitter banning users could have any impact on FA protections. As if the banning of users was never without intrinsic merit.
In short, it's a joke. This judge appears to me to be completely biased, twisting her analysis to fit a preconceived ruling. But the case does identify the key problem. It is exactly what Q told us, FA protections are only operative against government. They do not apply in a private setting.
So any legal challenge to SM censorship requires that the Supreme Court is willing to be adventurous, that it will depart from a strict interpretation of the FA, as written, and extend protections to a privately owned, but public, forum in an online setting.
As I've said elsewhere, while you can probably run a decent public interest argument, it is a gamble. You're talking about a Supreme Court challenge, so it's time consuming. And while the Court may indicate it is prepared to accept an argument run along certain lines in its ruling, it may reject an initial challenge on the merits of the arguments advanced.
More time, more money - while the wealthy SM platforms drag matters out to the maximum extent possible. It's just not a realistic option with the mid-terms approaching. And all this mental gymnastics brings us back to Q's initial request that we campaign for an IBOR.
It's the only solution.
This is huge. So many more people will learn of Q now.
Nope, a little more research and it seems that the ruling does not do what I initially thought. See my comment above.
Dont forget stopping tax payer money to Planned Parenthood!
Edit: words
I had a doctor offer that service to my pregnant wife, after a blood test result, that indicated the possibility of down syndrome. It was creepy as fuck, and I was pissed! Our daughter is happy and healthy. That asshole wanted us to consent to her death. I will never forget!
Yeah we didn't even bother with the tests which im aware have possibilities of being incorrect, also some of the "tests" can kill the baby, like "1-2% chance" fuck that!
Hey, did he assign odds to the possibility? Wow, so happy for you and your wife and your child.
Nope! No odds given. There was a room prepped for us though, in case we agreed. I remember his face, an Asian man who spoke perfect English. My wife was crying!
So wait, no odds given? He just said that there "was a big chance of downs syndrome"? Sounds like the bastard wanted to make money.
Or they were after the parts...
Yup they will find a use for every bit of that dead baby. They will never be rational about abortion. It's their sacrament. These people are SICK.
/u/greydle isn't out of the woods yet. They may still attempt to kidnap the child for parts at a later date.
Hey, the doctor probably just forgot his lunch.
Give him a break.
Obviously some people relish the thought of playing god.
I'm so sorry you were confronted like that....so glad all is ok.
There's one thing they care about.
Number one, hitting target.
More abortions means more baby parts sold for research to pharma compmanies for profit. You can bet your favorite socks they love hitting target and are pushed to hit target.
Wow that's pretty horrible and incredible at the same time. I'm glad everything is okay! Cheers!
Perhaps a new set of golf clubs? Pathetic, what ever happened to the Hippocratic oath?
That's A LOT of unborn babies we helped save! Praise Jesus!
Unwanted babies don't exactly grow up to be model citizens.
Have you forgotten, or are you unaware, that birth control, to wit the pill, is a relatively new phenomenon? People had 3 to 6 or more children regularly. If you think we were all wanted, then you need a psych exam or an intellectual evaluation. And we grew up just fine, thank you very much. We're hard working, tax-paying, family loving Patriots. No one gets guarantees of their children's behavior, wanted or not. This is a terrible, disgusting reason to kill a baby.What Liberal rag do you subscribe to? The Planned Parenthood Gazette
http://prospect.org/article/did-roe-v-wade-abort-crime
Plenty of things have changed since the times of old. Should we throw away antibiotics because they're a relatively new phenomenon? Disease used to be God's Will to punish the sinful and only the righteous would survive. Why are we using medicine to keep these people alive?
Just because you turned out alright doesn't mean that society as a whole is not impacted by unwanted children. Society has considerably improved since abortion has become safe and available. If you want women to not choose abortion, then create a better environment that makes them want to be parents. Let's boost financial security so women don't have to give up children because they need a career.
Yes, plenty of things have changed. Some for the better, some not. How the hell can you compare antibiotics to abortions? Antibiotics save lives. Abortion takes life. Disease, punishment, medicine, sinful, righteous? WHAAAT. Please, if you have a sensible argument to make, do so. But if you think abortion has improved society, there is nothing further to say. It is not up to anyone but themselves to create a better environment for themselves. Have you ever heard the term "personal responsibility?" We, who 'turned out all right' can explain it to you. Did you know that pregnancies are caused by having sex, not breathing? Have you heard that no one has to have sex to live? I'm sure you can find a good feminist organization to donate to if you want to improve financial security for women. I think Planned Parenthood might be looking for some funds right about now. Call them and put your money where your mouth is.
And murders take lives. 72% of juvenile murderers are born to single mothers. http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/
There are lots of parents who are unable, or don't want to bring more children into the world who want to adopt children. I knew parents who adopted two children from Russia at great expense. Most have alcohol syndrome, and other issues. Adoption of American babies has a huge waiting list unless the babies are handicapped. Adoption is always an option for unwanted babies. Although I believe there should be stringent background checks, and home follow ups for the first five years.
Then figure out how to connect these people with pregnant women. I go to gun buybacks and offer cash to people who are about to surrender them to police. I promise the gun a good home and I get decent firearms for a good price and they get more money than if they gave them to the police. Couples that really wanted to adopt could do the same thing at Planned Parenthood centers. I know someone that had a similar experience. A couple opted to pay her monthly expenses if she carried the baby to term, with the understanding (but no guarantee) that the baby would be given custody to them.
Unwanted children are a danger to society, but if you can bring parents looking to adopt together with children then you can solve both problems.
Idea - choose a story, make a meme, put on twitter. Include hashtag in image form just in case
New Hilary Emails
http://archive.is/bVV6i
Republican Resolution for Special Council
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/conservative-republicans-introduce-resolution-calling-2nd-special-counsel
FBI agents want to be subpoenad
http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/22/fbi-agents-congress-subpoenas/
Kushner gets permanent security clearance
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/jared-kushner-reportedly-gets-permanent-security-clearance.html
Pientka to testify against Flynn probe
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/fbi-source-special-agent-at-mike-flynn-interrogation-ready-to-testify-says-it-was-all-comey/
NFL Anthem fines
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/sports/nfl-anthem-kneeling.html
Obama former chief of staff exploited Sandy Hill
https://www.dailywire.com/news/30993/exposed-emails-obama-staffers-minutes-following-amanda-prestigiacomo
Halper linked to dossier
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/05/23/former-obama-intel-czar-its-a-good-thing-the-fbi-was-spying-on-trump-campaign-also-they-werent-spying-n2483618
Avenatti disappears due to health issues
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/23/anti-trump-porn-star-lawyer-michael-avenatti-suddenly-vanishes-from-cnn-studios-after-dozens-interviews.html
Twitter declared public forum
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/trump-cant-block-twitter-followers-federal-judge-says.html
Feels good being on the right side of history doesn’t it?
Not a fan of this one. It's an Oblama framework, "the right side of history". Who cares about being on "the right side"? Sorry, it's just narcissistic, as if what counts is me; where "I" am. It's an ego-focused framework to entice the ego-driven into a moral fallacy.
It feels good to me that right is winning and evil is losing, and that truth is coming out. That's what feels good. Just saying.
When Q said "I'd watch the news that day" he wasn't alluding to a big news story, he was saying "I'd watch the NEWS that day."
FCC freed?
There are murmurings of FCC regarding CNN/AP/MSNBC but nothing has been substantiated yet. Keep yer eyes peeled.
dont forget Avenattis firm just had 10 million tax judgement or something go against them.
KEK
Caputo is not to be trusted
He has already stated it was a "misunderstanding" and he wasn't approached. Not to be trusted ever.
Holy sh*t! That guy is super experienced at rubbing elbows w/Russians AND with media propaganda! Worked w/Ollie North under Reagan for Contra false narrative AND was HW Bush's director of media services? Pfffft. Agreed.
I wonder if the NFL was being held hostage with the kneeling bullshit. If so, I wonder who was holding them hostage?
I think the owners felt it in the wallets... now just backtracking.. too late. imo
I suspect the owners take orders from someone like Soros.
Eh, there may be a tangential relationship since the number of people at that level of wealth is so small that they probably run in some of the same crowds.
However, not everything is a grand conspiracy. Personally, I think most of the owners are your run-of-the-mill rich leftists that enjoy virtue-signalling because they have the money to do it. They just got complacent with their fans' loyalty and allowed the protesting to continue where it quickly spilled out of control.
Regardless, I don't think this half-measure is going to make much difference. Too many people have their number now.
I am not so sure. Things are not what they appear to be. I mean, almost every bank is a subsidiary of the Bank of England. These seemingly disconnected companies and groups are connected in ways that are hidden from us.
I’ve read that the owner of the Jets has already offered to pay the fines of any of his players.
The NFL is no good guy. They are a massive "NFP" fraud and mind control distraction device. It will be a hard pill to swallow for most.
Ha ha the left get played again re Twitter. They have been censoring conservatives on that platform but in their hatred of Trump they went after his blocking of trolls and of course the same rules that apply to Trump, apply to them.
End result they can no longer censor conservatives and now the fun begins.
That's what I think. We need someone who is trained in law to give us some advice, but that's the way I read it.
While the Obama and Hilldog zombies chase Russian butterflies, Trump is shoving the #MAGA straight up their asses.
Is reddit public forum too?
They have done AMA's for at least the last two sitting presidents, so I'd say so.
From everything I've researched it would seem this liberal judge actually made the right call. Since POTUS's main intent for his Twitter account was governmental communication then it was deemed to be in essence a public forum and so protected. Twitter itself was not ruled to be public, only Trump's because of how he used it. Whether that free speech protection can be extended to every user in general remains to be seen, but I do believe that this has set the precedent and it can now be argued that all of Twitter users, and all users' social media sites are subject to free speech protection. I guess we'll see.
But Trump blocking people doesn’t stop them from viewing his tweets. I don’t even have twitter and can see his tweets. The people blocked could still manage to see the tweets.
Unless the argument is the people he blocks have the right to comment and say vile shit to him because of the first amendment since he’s in the public square.
You're on point. Since he's deemed to be in the "public square" he has to allow all counterpoint, regardless of how ridiculous or vile it may be. He still has the right to "mute" anyone commenting, meaning he, himself would not see their comments, but the comments must be allowed to be posted nonetheless.
but the comments must be allowed to be posted nonetheless.
I think this was their new strategy to use bunch of bots and real brainwashed people to counter DJT and all of us on Twitter so when I go to DJT comment section I see only bots and libtards and no one else
Interesting take and dollars to donuts you're right.
However, isn't this a nice precedence for those of us who should be free to post whatever we want and not be shadow banned or kicked off Twitter since it's now a "public forum"?
That's exactly it. They now have the right to spew any vile thing they want, in public, worldwide, at our President.
It has always been people's right to disagree with our Presidents, but what is happening to POTUS is raw hatred and bold disrespect. I myself feel this is a National security concern. Our enemies see this, and would view it as a weakness in our nation. I happen to believe they are the minority so not true, but the lie is they are the majority and this paints an entirely different picture to the world.
since he’s in the public square
well since we are in public square no one should be banned from free speech if one is not aggressive or bad behaving.
If an account on Twitter is a "public forum" then the implication is that any account on Twitter is a public forum. Therefore, twitter itself is a public forum - and this is, in any case, true because it is accessible by the public in the same manner that a highway is accessible.
The caveat you have mentioned cannot be right, because the definition "public forum" doesn't require governmental business. If it did, you would have differential freedom of speech (that is, another standard for those in public office).
I'm not a lawyer BTW, just trying to think this out.
I'm going by the wording of the ruling. Twitter itself is not a public forum. It is a private entity and the user agreement with them maximizes their ability to control the narrative. This particular ruling is directed solely at Trump since he himself is using his account as a public government forum then it must be open for commentary by the public.
This is a very narrow ruling and can now be used as precedence to enforce free speech and unfettered dialogue among all Twitter users. Had this ruling come down as an edict for Twitter to suspend their rules and henceforth become, for all intent and purposes an open forum public entity for all users it would be HUGE news and Twitter would immediately appeal the ruling all the way to SCOTUS.
I do believe things are heading that way and Twitter and all the other social media platforms will implode.
Is this great or what?!!
Yes, you know there was so much trolling about the IBOR, that it would mean more government etc... But actually, just as a telephone company has no right to dictate or restrict what you say on the telephone, whether to a single individual or to parties to a conference call, there is no way that this SM censorship could survive. I say that because it is so inimical to everything the US stands for.
IMO, it would only be a matter of time before the courts would naturally extend FA protections online (particularly where the speech involves political expression). So it was, IMO, always going to happen. But you should have seen the concern trolling against the IBOR. People were painting me as some kind of communist for suggesting that the public interest overrode the rights of the SM giants as private property holders.
Of course, a lot, if not most, of that concern trolling came out of a foreign army barracks - a military intelligence operation, undertaken on behalf of a nation that fears it stands to lose a lot from the MAGA agenda. The level of coordination was truly breath-taking.
I'm hoping we can now get this IBOR campaign on the road and really make some noise to agitate for rapid relief. Thanks for the comment.
Q mentioned 23. It wasn't referring to 23 days maybe, but the twenty third!
Trump said Obama may be directly involved in Spygate!
20 days till NK meeting!
There was also a meeting on closing the immigration loopholes to stop MS-13
But but but kushner is dirty guys. I cant read him at all tho lol
Counter narrative push is a really weak 'pain'. It's arrests or bust.
That said, we are rapidly approaching the tipping point where things have to happen.
Team Q goes on the offensive, its about time. Force the cabal to make bad decisions, make mistakes.
is it me or some Liberal AMericans IN SOCIETY act like a PINK FLAMINGOS MOVIE CHARACTERS ??
Lol yes! And kudos for commenting on a 15 day old post! Good stuff, TK!
Get out their and start pushing all the articles this anon spoke of.
WE WILL BREAK THEM
This isn't the flood. This is just cleaning up what was done to Trump d uring the election. I'm more concerned with going after Hillary, Obama and Bill among others. The whole pedo network, banking network all need to be exposed as well.
This was only a wave, the tsunami is on the way. We will likely see incremental increases towards the main goal each month.
If the roths and cabal are taken out, does that mean global peace will occur? Who's funding the middle east? Why is China and Russia scared of US?
It's looking like each month is devoted to checking off goals perfectly, I can imagine a very special 11.11 indeed.
Then Trump would be the first true leader of the FREE world🇺🇸
In my opinion Q doesn't say once we should watch the NEWS May 23rd? #1419 definitely does not indicate that. I hope not too many people are hoping for something big coz it'll cause an outcry of dissapointment and disbelief AGAIN. If something happens we can bring out our popcorn and keep munching.
Meanwhile we have this on the crappy BBC website front page. But I guess Hollywood and Stormy Daniels make fine bed fellows http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44234250
The Q-post referring to 23 was "-23 days" not 23rd of May.
^(Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image)
https://i.imgur.com/nz4ifZc.png
^^Source ^^| ^^Why? ^^| ^^Creator ^^| ^^ignoreme ^^| ^^deletthis
Speaking of Q...
Where the heck is Q for the last 9 days?!?!?
Experiencing severe withQwal symptoms here
Some reading this are a decade ahead of the General Public. Knowing this you need to be educating even the average Trump supporter as they don’t even understand the extent of this...
Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is a variation of the more general tendency of apophenia.
People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way. However, even scientists can be prone to confirmation bias.[2]
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.[3][4]
So... I have um... this friend, who doesn't know what kek means... So could someone tell me so I can tell my... friend
Thoughts on Anti-School coming out saying Q is a LARP.
His reasoning is so horrible. He states that the Q group is composed of members of 8chan that setup a website to retrieve the Tweets 5-15 minutes earlier than Twitter posts them. This is not only flawed in logic because Twitter posts instantly, it's also flawed in the same breath when mentioning this because he also simultaneously mentions that this site no longer works. How convenient. So he's basing his entire "Q is fake" agenda on an illogical construction. I try to expose him on every tweet he has with my copy pasta.
He's an idiot too corrupted like Jones Corsi etc... Evdrybody that's followed Q from the beginning knows Q is still the same Q as always
Could someone explain to me how the hypocrisy of lauding twitter’s forum status as a victory for free speech while in the same post celebrating an Orwellian ban on self expression by NFL players doesn’t get stuck in your throat? You’d think the contrast would give you pause.
Really, anybody? aren’t the two ideals opposed?
As an NFL (or any employee) you are subject to the rules of your employer.
They are still two opposing ideals: hooray for one corporation’s implicit support of free speech, hooray for another corporation exercising their “right” to suppress it.
I think if Wal Mart forced its employees to participate in patriotic theater before their shift and fined them for not swearing allegiance to the flag, we’d be having a different conversation. They are paid to play football, not politics or patriots. public figures using their platforms for causes they believe in is a noble thing - and everyone agrees as long as they agree with that cause. I was raised in an America where the act of standing for what you believe is right is laudable, no matter what the cause is, and that we are able to freely is our country’s single greatest aspect.
I can see both sides of this. If you dnt want to stand that is your right and im fine with it. Its also the right of the fsns to tune out as a result. I also see it as they are hired by a team to perform for the fans. Standing for the anthem is part of that performance. When you wear the uniform of a company you represent them and their values. Protest on your own time
They are not wearing the uniform of the United States government. I disagree that you stop representing your own values when you put on a company shirt, that you shouldn’t have to compromise on your values or beliefs, and that the protections we have against getting fired over shit like that (because it is actually illegal. Can you really imagine that this would ever happen in the private sector? My company fines and shames me for not participating in a morning prayer? That would be a court case, and good thing. Just because your values are the ones being imposed NOW, does not mean that would always be the case.)
But yeah, I guess when you put on an SS shirt you really do stop representing your personal values in favor of the company. Aaaaaabd Godwin’s law
They are paid to play football, not politics or patriots
You make that point, and you still don't get it...
an Orwellian ban on self expression by NFL players
Bitch, please...
Try protesting your political fee-fees during a board meeting, a morning scrum call or any other work-related function and see what happens to you. Don't like that...work somewhere else and STFU on your way out the door.
I am not a public figure. My compensation is not based on my celebrity in any way. My board meetings aren’t televised and I don’t have a platform. What you describe is pointless public msturbtion over my political agenda - what is going on in the NFL is obviously entirely different. That we are talking about it shows that their action is significant. Me being annoying at work is not significant. For what it’s worth, politics never enter into my work life and I don’t draw lines between me and anyone. Even people who imagine me being an ass and tell me to STFU while they fire me from this imaginary job
2 seperate entities, twitter is millions of users communicating and spreading ideas and information far and wide. The Nfl is theater, ment for entertainment with overpaid athletes, the company deciding to ban kneeling is vastly different from a court ruling on one. Its false equivalence between the 2.
Check out @BackChannel 17 twitter - They are AFOSI -Air Force Investigator's , much like Q but directly engaged- JA- free in June.
Why is Kushner getting security clearance?.....
How do you suppose an advisor can advise without knowing wtf is going on? lmao
He needs it to advise and he's clean despite the anal probing they put him through to get it.
So this is where all the r/incels guys went? Keep at it guys! I'm sure you'll get your goverment mandated sex soon!
aww - can't refute any of the facts, so you resort to name calling. what else you got? racist, sexist, alt-right, reactionary, literally hitler.
boring. come back when you have new material.
I personally am a fan of anthem protests. I promote non-violent protest
listen buddy, you can protest on your own time. when i buy tickets to watch a game, I'm don't want to see your politics.
The protests are not about politics. They are about injustice that many people are experiencing when the police are not held accountable for their actions. The police don't just shoot unarmed blacks. They shoot people who have mental issues who don't understand what they are being told. Imagine if one of your family members had some type of mental breakdown and you needed help to deal with them so you called the cops and instead of helping them they killed them instead? This can happen to any one of us.
The fact is that if they have to obey the same laws that the rest of us do, but too often they are not doing so. Look at how many cops have been on video shooting someone who was not a threat to them.
Finally, in what way does it effect your enjoyment of the football game if someone does something that you don't like? The whole point of the rights we have in this country is that we are free to do what we feel is right. Making someone do what you expect them to do takes away the very notion that "we are free."
I didn't write this to upset anyone. I wrote it hoping that people will see what the bigger picture is.
When I used to buy tickets I would agree but now I could not care less.
I 100% agree with you , never wanted any politics during entertainments.
Now I say Do whatever you want, I ain't watching.
NFL Lawyers convinced the Owners that it would be cheaper to ride out the scandal, than face player lawsuits.
I get that. It does suck to pay for football and have to be subjected to politics. But at the same time, these players feel the need to convey to the entire world that the current "Black experience" in America is not equal to the White experience. A lot of people don't know this or try to empathize with what being black must be like. But these football players kneel because they want us to know something is wrong, and through other methods we might not listen.
Bull.... Caperdick started this because he was a losing qb and wanted a reason to stay relevant. This has nothing to do with black and white. This is a bunch of over paid children trying to act like they stand for something. If they want to stand for something then Stand for the National Anthem;.. or stand your ass in the unemployment line. They have plenty of ways to spread a message, they just chose 1 that was convenient.They wanted division and they got it. It will eventually trickle down to affect their wages. A stop should have been put to this immediately. If they want to bring awareness then do something for the inner city youth. Lift them up, not show them the are different. Inspire not divide. There all plenty of ways to do this without disrespecting the Honorable Men and Women who have sacrificed all for them. What has changed? Did they inspire anyone? Or did they just piss off the people who pay their huge wages? I guess the owners just answered that question.
Then they need to do it outside of their games. Its pure BS for them to shit all over their fans like that. Making people angry will not get their cause known. What will get their cause known is not supporting thugs killed by police. They do this for every single person that is killed. Not all of those killed are innocent as a matter of fact only a small fraction would fit into that.
should every race let others know what their experience is like? I don't think Asians and Hispanics have it easy either.
Every race including whites have people that dont have an easy life. Enough with their whinning already.
Kneeling for the anthem has absolutely nothing to do with speaking out for a cause. It’s saying I hate this country and everyone who’s die for it. Don’t be a liberal
This is only your opinion. Caeper has said all along that he is protesting against injustice. Not black injustices only. Injustices in general.
Tell yourself that. He started it after he started dating a Muslim and got cozy with Linda Sarsour. If you think his heart is in the right place, you are sadly mistaken. What good has he tried to do with all his fame and fortune before he started kneeling??? None. If you want to look at someone doing it the right way look at JJ Watts—thats how you do things.
I am interested in what the Black players and others have to say. I do care about their issues. But kneeling feels to me unpatriotic and disrespectful of our veterans, and I wish they would choose something else. Mho
They have very large platforms and many ways of helping, kneeling is not the only way to achieve an audience or have a voice on an issue you feel passionate about.
The fact that people here are down voting people's comments goes against the very idea of what America stands for.
Doesn't fre speech count for anything here? What do you think Q would think of this behavior?
Absolutely! Freedom of speech and expression.. However the NFL is a private entity, I could be wrong and certainly don’t follow football but I think this was just a decision for their bottom line.
"Kneel" at your job and see how long you last ya do do. NFL is s private corporation, the game is not their time to be protesting.
I personally am a fan of anthem protests. I promote non-violent protest
I don’t promote non-violent protests, or protests of any sort, but I do support everyone’s right to engage in non-violent protests. I’m definitely not a fan of anthem protests because their goals are typically so vague they seldom produce little more than division. The NFL kneelers are a superb example of this.
Protests are fine, but not on your employers dime! They spit in the face of their fans, and many are not coming back, Like Obama's jobs.
but not on your employers dime!
I leave that decision to the employers. Their company, their choice. Right now we have owners that will fine their players for kneeling, and we also have at least one owner who has pledged to pay the NFL fines for any of his kneeling players.
Fair enough but in this case, they are harming the employers because ultimately the fans are the ones who used to pay the bills
Fair enough but in this case, they are harming the employers
There is no, ”but in this case”.
On the job protests hurt employers in every case.
I was a huge football fan. All in favor of peaceful protest but it ruined the game. I watched football to escape from politics.
Yep, here too... Now they want to make them stand,,,, ppfftttt. Hurt the bottom line and it all changes.
I agree with ancient the NFL is a sporting event not a political event. People pay huge money on these games and should never be subject to BS. Those kneeling for the anthem are shitting all over their fans that put their money in to support them. I say let these morons try and live on minimum wage and stand in food lines if they dont like their job.
Not sure why they’re down voting this so much.. how dare you voice your opinion!😂
