Skintime Posted March 22, 2021 Share Posted March 22, 2021 3 hours ago, mistertim said: Probably Goya. But you're right. They're probably going to be seriously starved for ad revenue. And there's no way Trump would run something like that if it wasn't making him a bunch of money. I predict it will either fizzle, or Trump will make someone else pay for it. Mexico 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry.Randolphe Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 (edited) he just keeps on grifting them. God damn Edited March 23, 2021 by Barry.Randolphe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 I bet it has a subscription fee. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 That thing is going to be such a complete piece of ****. Two moronic cheapskate grifters with little to no real technology knowledge and who are solely out for money building a social media app. What could possibly go wrong? I'm curious just how incredibly blatant they're going to be about making money off of it. Will it charge for use like @PleaseBlitzsaid? Will they have ads plastered over every square inch of it? Who's going to advertise on it? It's only a matter of time before they're hocking penis enlargement and "medical" quackery like Alex Jones. I'm also wondering how Trump will abuse the power of being in control of it. Will he make everyone watch videos he puts out every day in order to use the platform? Will they be forced to answer "polls" about whether he has a 9, 10, or 12 inch penis? He'll figure out some way to make sure he's always front and center. Will he force them to sign something agreeing that the election was stolen in order to use it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 2 hours ago, mistertim said: That thing is going to be such a complete piece of ****. Two moronic cheapskate grifters with little to no real technology knowledge and who are solely out for money building a social media app. What could possibly go wrong? I'm curious just how incredibly blatant they're going to be about making money off of it. Will it charge for use like @PleaseBlitzsaid? Will they have ads plastered over every square inch of it? Who's going to advertise on it? It's only a matter of time before they're hocking penis enlargement and "medical" quackery like Alex Jones. I'm also wondering how Trump will abuse the power of being in control of it. Will he make everyone watch videos he puts out every day in order to use the platform? Will they be forced to answer "polls" about whether he has a 9, 10, or 12 inch penis? He'll figure out some way to make sure he's always front and center. Will he force them to sign something agreeing that the election was stolen in order to use it? Dont forget the market for selling peoples browsing and clicking habits. If they have all of those Trump supporters on there thats 70+ million people whose info you can sell to whatever country wants them. Straight CASH homie! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 I think we all know had Trump fell down the steps 3 times, it would have also been on a constant loop on CNN, bringing in physicians and psychologists to study the fall and what it means for his health. Remember when he held the rail walking down the ramp at West Point? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 I'm 55 and walk for a living...and I would take those stairs more cautiously than he did, to be honest. He ain't Barack. Let's take it slow, Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 (edited) It just dawned on me this morning, watching Boebert's ****ty take on the Denver shooting, that I ate breakfast at her restaurant in 17 when I was up there on a Muley hunt at Rifle Gap Lake. Food was ok, but the decor and the waitresses packing iron on their hip was bizarre and not appealing. To espouse gun culture in that childlike and irresponsible way nullifies anything you might have to say on tragedies that involve guns. Edited March 23, 2021 by KAOSkins 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said: I think we all know had Trump fell down the steps 3 times, it would have also been on a constant loop on CNN, bringing in physicians and psychologists to study the fall and what it means for his health. Remember when he held the rail walking down the ramp at West Point? Maybe if it's a slow news day. CNN would be wall to wall on a mass shooting instead of a four day old Trump tripping incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 An interesting point about Trump's possible social media foray. Trump considers adding a social media network to his list of failures Quote Next you have this problem: As much as Trump might revel in the adulation of his fans, what he has always craved most is the attention and acknowledgment of the broader public (and the elites, whom he derides while simultaneously seeking their acceptance). That’s why Twitter worked so well for him: Because it’s the place where journalists congregate (along with a few hundred million other people), he could leverage it to achieve much wider attention than simply speaking to the like-minded people who followed him there. But a platform solely populated by his supporters will probably suffer the same problem sites such as Parler had: With only conservatives in attendance, even those who went there enthusiastically at the beginning didn’t find it all that compelling. If you own the libs on your social media site but no libs are there to hear it, have the libs actually been owned? "If a lib is owned in the forest and nobody is there to see it, was it really owned?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, mistertim said: "If a lib is owned in the forest and nobody is there to see it, was it really owned?" I just read that article and that exact line made me LOL. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 23 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: sounds like socialism more than social network. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 Not sure if this goes here, but I'm struck that Sidney Powell's argument for dismissal is in actuality an admission of guilt. For those not up to speed, her argument for dismissal is she can't be sued for defamation and slander because no one would believe the horrible, slanderous things she repeatedly said about Dominion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 49 minutes ago, Burgold said: Not sure if this goes here, but I'm struck that Sidney Powell's argument for dismissal is in actuality an admission of guilt. For those not up to speed, her argument for dismissal is she can't be sued for defamation and slander because no one would believe the horrible, slanderous things she repeatedly said about Dominion. it worked for Tucker. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 The old fox news defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 The Joe Biden falling thing is something everyone is justified in halving a chuckle at, it's more that Fox News is doing the obvious and of course trying to overplay the mocking as if to say "Seeeeeee.....he has dementia and is unfit and Trump never stumbled because he was an Adonis of a man" And Lauren Boehbert, let me guess, her solution is for everyone to be packing heat because a gun battle in a crowded grocery store sounds like the scenario everyone should be in favor of? Oh, and Sidney Powell's lawyer going for the Tucker Carlson "only idiots would believe what I kept repeating to them over and over and over" Well, in some ways she is correct, not sure if it is a good legal argument though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 20 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: Oh, and Sidney Powell's lawyer going for the Tucker Carlson "only idiots would believe what I kept repeating to them over and over and over" Well, in some ways she is correct, not sure if it is a good legal argument though. The law uses the concept of "the ordinary, reasonable person," and how such a person would act or think, a lot when determining liability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Carroll_Towing_Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person I feel like that definition needs a big time overhaul, and not for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 Just now, PleaseBlitz said: The law uses the concept of "the ordinary, reasonable person," and how such a person would act or think, a lot when determining liability. Ok. So if 77% of Trump supporters, 26% of independents and 10% of democrats think the election was stolen, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-president-trump-robbed-poll , then do they qualify as ordinary reasonable people? Also the suite is over claimed loss of business. Are the people deciding to dump them not doing it because of what “ordinary and reasonable” people are thinking and trying to instill faith in their (local) electoral process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 11 minutes ago, tshile said: Ok. So if 77% of Trump supporters, 26% of independents and 10% of democrats think the election was stolen, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-president-trump-robbed-poll , then do they qualify as ordinary reasonable people? That's the question. I would contend that, in a lot of cases (especially dealing with MAGA/QANON people), ordinary people are not reasonable. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 Well then there is also the difference between someone saying something one or two times and then going away, and someone being given a national media outlet forum to repeat the lies over and over. In a case like this even Sidney Powell simply having to state publicly that she had zero evidence of any of the accusations she made would go a long way, not with everyone, but at least it would be out there that she admitted to lying. Either way, yeah the law seems a bit weird, especially if said party was purposely spreading lies in order to shape public opinion and not under the guise of parody or satire, which are two things usually protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 1 hour ago, NoCalMike said: Well then there is also the difference between someone saying something one or two times and then going away, and someone being given a national media outlet forum to repeat the lies over and over. In a case like this even Sidney Powell simply having to state publicly that she had zero evidence of any of the accusations she made would go a long way, not with everyone, but at least it would be out there that she admitted to lying. Either way, yeah the law seems a bit weird, especially if said party was purposely spreading lies in order to shape public opinion and not under the guise of parody or satire, which are two things usually protected. That would be nice. It would also have been nice if Tucker had to say coming out of and going into every break that nothing he says is true and nobody should believe what he's saying. Every show for the rest of his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 (edited) It is the most devilishly disguised ownage of ALL TIME. Sydney Powell, just after being declared the winner of the annual Holy **** Can This Person's Eyes BE Any Closer Together contest, OWNED THE LIBS by OWNING THE CONSERVATIVES. Gol'Dang Emmit! She done owned them libs by treatin' us like we was nothin' but a buncha unedjicatered IDJITS or sump'thin! We done bought it and went and tried ta ovath'ow the gubmint, an' she was jus' PLAYIN' US so's she could OWN the libs by showin' US fer how STOOPIT we really is! Shoo-wee boy! That there is next level! ~Dang Edited March 23, 2021 by Bang 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now