Honest question for Trump supporters

[hollodero]

(09-15-2023, 10:52 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: Dude. Are you serious right now? Have you ever even been on Twitter in your life?

Yes, dude.

(09-15-2023, 10:52 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: 3) First, what should the FBI have done regarding this laptop. I'm actually curious about that one. Give a press conference a few days before the election, informing the public that they have a laptop of Hunter Biden in their possession? Let the story get the same TV time as the Russia collusion. They shouldn't have lied to Twitter and say it was disinformation when they knew damn well it wasn't. This is public info, man.

Is it, man? Dude? My info is that some social media companies asked the FBI whether they actually had Hunter's laptop in possession, to which they wisely gave a 'no comment' answer. Officially. Inofficially, it is said that one agent first said "yes" and then was overruled by the no comment position. In no way did the FBI tell anyone that this story was in fact Russian misinformation (as some officials and media outlets speculated). Some argued they "led them to believe" it was by not clearly stating the opposite, but all they actually did was saying no comment. Which rather proves that the FBI wanted to keep their heads down and not get heavily involved in yet another presidential campaign, after they heavily involved themselves in the 2016 one by announcing a renewed investigation into Hillary's emails. That's all. The rest is storytelling.

I don't even know how to respond to you demanding the FBI should have given the laptop story an equal amount of TV time. The FBI is not into TV programming.

(09-15-2023, 10:52 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: Did they release the Russia story before the investigation? Yes. So your point is total stupidity.

Yeah, first off, love you too. Second, what point is that supposed to be? The media talked plenty about Russia alright, mainly because Russia tried to interfere in the election, and because Trump made some peculiar personnel choices and said the darndest things about Russia. That had nothing to do with the FBI investigations, which the FBI, again, did not inform the public about prior to the election.

Which is where your whole conspiracy stops making any sense. An FBI in cohouts with democrats would not have torpedoed Hillary's campaign a few days before the election by announcing a renewed investigation into her emails, and might probably just have informed the public about the investigation into the Trump campaign instead. Someone explain to me once why they did what they did in '16 while they were so in bed with the democrats.

(09-15-2023, 10:52 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: 1) If twitter is merely a democratic outlet, how comes they let Trump spew out whatever he pleased for years on end? No What is this "if"? 98% of them voted Democrat and there have been messages between admins that were released after Elon bought it on what excuse they would use to silence the Biden laptop story. Public info. How come they let him... because he wasn't taken seriously, then, immediately became the president of the United States. He had what, 50 million followers on Twitter? You can't silence those tweets, you can only bury stories. Which is what they did. 

He wasn't taken seriously and then immediately was president, aha. Sure there was a primary first, then he became the nominee, then there was the election cycle, and all of a sudden he was president, much aided by twitter letting him reach many millions of people. On twitter, he falsely accused different folks of murder, like the Central park 5 or Joe Scarborough, he reposted videos of an European extremist party, he engaged in slander and harassment, and so much more, all clear violations of the twitter conduct rules. You and I would have gotten banned for that. According to yourself they allegedly banned conservatives all the time (which makes me wonder where the 50 million Trump followers came from, but whatever). Why not ban him?
And of course you can just ban him at any time, it does not cost any more clicks to ban @realDonaldTrump than it takes to ban anyone. As proven when after two elections, they finally did just that. That he had 50 million followers and twitter did not want to lose that revenue would make sense for a company, sure. But according to you own words, they worked as a democratic outlet. As such, no reason to bother about them.

Now to your narrative. Just imagine a non-private entity totally in cohouts with democrats. That observe how their opponent gathers more and more support on their very platform and uses it to spread his word. The democrats should have ordered them to delete his account immediately and without hesitation. There was plenty of valid reason to justify that. That he was allowed to stay on blows a huge hole in your whole conspiracy theory, it just makes no sense.

Twitter should not have gone so far as to flag the Hunter laptop stories, that much I can agree with. Then again, I would have also flagged anything coming out of the mouth of Rudy Giuliani. You spread misinformation a thousand times like Rudy did, you will get labeled as such.
Where you got you 98% vote democrats number from, I don't know. But even if, all that proves is that Trump is fairly unpopular there. That happened to him frequently. You can of course argue that in fact half the country colluded against Trump by voting for the other person. Scandal!