The real Donald Trump
not just the Capitol
anarchy
https://www.gunandgame.com/threads/j...pitols.214113/
I like that one: If Trump is charged, convicted and goes to prison, he'll be awfully lonely since he pardoned all his friends.
You know it's bad when even the ACLU sides with Trump. Maybe they'll be banned for hate speech next.
https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-counse...ension-1560248
And somebody who is all too familiar with censorship:
https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1347969772177264644
Last edited by shri; 11-01-2021 at 07:35 AM.
Add this to the winners get to rewrite history file
Campaign is cut off from credit card processing.. does not matter even if your in-laws are investors...
https://www.axios.com/payment-proces...2b9a26d08.html
And the PGA is also cutting off his golf courses.
https://www.afr.com/world/north-amer...0210110-p56t18“We find ourselves in a political situation not of our making,” Seth Waugh, the CEO of the PGA of America, told AP. “We’re fiduciaries for our members, for the game, for our mission and for our brand. And how do we best protect that? Our feeling was given the tragic events of Wednesday that we could no longer hold it at Bedminster. The damage could have been irreparable. The only real course of action was to leave.”
Last edited by shri; 11-01-2021 at 11:23 AM.
Standard response to this (also standard) argument:
In 1945, philosopher Karl Popper attributed the paradox to Plato's defense of "benevolent despotism" and defined it in The Open Society and Its Enemies.[1]
Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Emphasis mine... things have clearly moved well into the bolded area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
It'll be interesting to see if right wing money goes to setting up offshore services for hate speech, similar the the [x]chan servers.
double post because I hit "quote" instead of "edit post"