Trump MAGAthread VIII: Make the MAGAthread Great Again

[Vassenor]

True, but so what if Trump tweets stupid shit. As long as he follows the rules of Twitter. You can't ban someone just because you dont like him. It's bad for business.

He has broken Twitter rules before though...

Something something laws are for poor people

[Gim]

He has broken Twitter rules before though...

Something something laws are for poor people

Billionaires can always get away with rule-breaking. Money transfer, and that's it.

[The Black Forrest]

But muh negative rights...

I don't tweet stupid shit, and not everyone is the head of state of the world's superpower.

True, but so what if Trump tweets stupid shit. As long as he follows the rules of Twitter. You can't ban someone just because you dont like him. It's bad for business.

*shrugs* I thought companies can do what ever they want with their "property?"

[Gim]

True, but so what if Trump tweets stupid shit. As long as he follows the rules of Twitter. You can't ban someone just because you dont like him. It's bad for business.

*shrugs* I thought companies can do what ever they want with their "property?"

Technically, they can, but, in reality, they're costing the image of their company.

[The Black Forrest]

*shrugs* I thought companies can do what ever they want with their "property?"

Technically, they can, but, in reality, they're costing the image of their company.

People are too simple minded to go "but you banned the fake president!!!!?!?!?!"

Sure people would leave but they slowly return. How many people said they would leave here never to return?

[Gim]

Technically, they can, but, in reality, they're costing the image of their company.

People are too simple minded to go "but you banned the fake president!!!!?!?!?!"

Sure people would leave but they slowly return. How many people said they would leave here never to return?

Well, I guess, in the case of Trump, people won't easily leave the company.

[Militant Costco]

Technically, they can, but, in reality, they're costing the image of their company.

People are too simple minded to go "but you banned the fake president!!!!?!?!?!"

Sure people would leave but they slowly return. How many people said they would leave here never to return?

One is talking about leaving a crap social media site.

The other is talking about leaving your home to an entirely new country and start fresh.

I think there's a small difference between the two.

[Telconi]

*shrugs* I thought companies can do what ever they want with their "property?"

Technically, they can, but, in reality, they're costing the image of their company.

I don't think she cares.

[Gim]

Technically, they can, but, in reality, they're costing the image of their company.

I don't think she cares.

Who?

[The East Marches II]

Technically, they can, but, in reality, they're costing the image of their company.

People are too simple minded to go "but you banned the fake president!!!!?!?!?!"

Sure people would leave but they slowly return. How many people said they would leave here never to return?

Has Twitter turned a profit yet? I don't think they particularly care about losing a few users. It isn't that popular beyond a core group who really utilize it.

[Telconi]

I don't think she cares.

Who?

The woman who is proposing to buy Twitter for the express purpose of banning Trump.

[Gim]

Who?

The woman who is proposing to buy Twitter for the express purpose of banning Trump.

What? Is this what this was all about?

[Telconi]

The woman who is proposing to buy Twitter for the express purpose of banning Trump.

What? Is this what this was all about?

That was what originally sparked this conversation.

[Gim]

What? Is this what this was all about?

That was what originally sparked this conversation.

Well, good luck to that woman, I guess.

[AiliailiA]

The woman who is proposing to buy Twitter for the express purpose of banning Trump.

What? Is this what this was all about?

So obviously going to fail it's nothing more than a media stunt. But apparently worth taking seriously, to NSG.

[Gim]

What? Is this what this was all about?

So obviously going to fail it's nothing more than a media stunt. But apparently worth taking seriously, to NSG.

It was just purely funny to me.

[Ifreann]

What? Is this what this was all about?

So obviously going to fail it's nothing more than a media stunt. But apparently worth taking seriously, to NSG.

Kinda wish I'd thought of it first. I mean, I don't think Twitter has ever been profitable, so maybe that's not the best target, but crowdfunding an investment portfolio sounds brilliant. "Buy these shares for me and I will oppose Trump! Pay no attention to the dividends resting in my account!"

[Vassenor]

So what do all the free speech advocates think of the demands from the government that academics stop making reference to "global warming" and "climate change" in their work?

[Eol Sha]

OVER ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!?!?!?
Fuck oil, dude.

"Over one trillion dollars" is also a low estimate of the cost of an Iraq-style occupation over the decade it would take to extract all those minerals.

At best appropriating Afghanistan's resources would be a partial cost recovery, never an overal profit-making operation, and from an America First point of view would be burning some taxpayer money while giving the rest to US mining companies.

No, let's not do that.

The hell you talking about, Ail? Trump promised to create new mining jobs.

[Eol Sha]

So what do all the free speech advocates think of the demands from the government that academics stop making reference to "global warming" and "climate change" in their work?

It's borderline tyrannical, in my opinion. Tyrannical, anti-science, and a national security risk.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So what do all the free speech advocates think of the demands from the government that academics stop making reference to "global warming" and "climate change" in their work?

I think it's horrific on many different levels, but I suspect I'm not the kind of free speech advocate you're aiming for.

[Albrenia]

You'd think if they really thought global warming was a hoax they'd set up studies to look into it and prove it false, instead of censoring it away.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You're a boson.

Boson?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

[Valrifell]

You'd think if they really thought global warming was a hoax they'd set up studies to look into it and prove it false, instead of censoring it away.

Problem being no methodologically sound study disproving global warming could ever really exist. The idea has survived decades, been backed up through countless studies and metastudies, and the consensus across academia is that it is happening, and it is humanity's fault.

It is a fact, there is nothing more to prove or disprove, we are beyond that.

[Ifreann]

So what do all the free speech advocates think of the demands from the government that academics stop making reference to "global warming" and "climate change" in their work?

I think it's horrific on many different levels, but I suspect I'm not the kind of free speech advocate you're aiming for.

One imagines the sort of person who hears that some organisation or other has chosen to stop using some term and freaks out about words being banned, PC gone mad, etc.