A Few Words On Censorship

tokeless wrote: Btw, did you ever look at what I offered you on Gaza, Wuhan? Of course you didn't... you don't need to.

There is a difference between offering something new rather than offering up the same talking points that have been repeated a thousand times, eg Trump went bankrupt or was accused of X or Y or Z. Or offering up some documentary or insider account, as if over the last 5 years I haven’t heard some version or twist to the “Trump is evil” mantra.

Tell me something new tokeless. Offer me something about Trump that hasn’t already been broadcast across every liberal network for 5 years.

I offered you something that wasn’t in some conservative media spin machine or right wing blog. I offered you a concrete, historical list of the actions he actually took. I didn’t even say whether the actions were good, bad, etc. I don’t like all the actions he signed, but I’m also not putting some spin on his actions to fit an evil narrative or make him out to be some wonderful president.

tokeless wrote:Just read the lobbying ban executive order. Sounded quite ethical....

Trump revoked the order on the final day of his presidency without explanation.[4][6][12] This allowed his appointees, some of whom had had trouble finding work after the White House, to immediately begin working as lobbyists.[4][5][6] President Bill Clinton similarly revoked his comparable executive order at the end of his presidency, something Trump criticized him for during the 2016 campaign.[6]

So, not that much really. It was suggested that he used much of the wording from the former Democrats one.
If I get chance I'll look at some more as they aren't always what they seem... or is that just me looking for it?

Well, I find it interesting that the very first choice you made is to point out an order he gave that you disagree with as to continue your narrative. You didn’t choose one where you agree. Why not?

For instance, you could have chosen his order to not deport illegals from Venezuela. But you didn’t. Why? Or was not deporting illegals from Venezuela part of his hidden agenda to make money?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

tokeless wrote:Just read the lobbying ban executive order. Sounded quite ethical....

Trump revoked the order on the final day of his presidency without explanation.[4][6][12] This allowed his appointees, some of whom had had trouble finding work after the White House, to immediately begin working as lobbyists.[4][5][6] President Bill Clinton similarly revoked his comparable executive order at the end of his presidency, something Trump criticized him for during the 2016 campaign.[6]

So, not that much really. It was suggested that he used much of the wording from the former Democrats one.
If I get chance I'll look at some more as they aren't always what they seem... or is that just me looking for it?

Well, I find it interesting that the very first choice you made is to point out an order he gave that you disagree with as to continue your narrative. You didn’t choose one where you agree. Why not?

For instance, you could have chosen his order to not deport illegals from Venezuela. But you didn’t. Why? Or was not deporting illegals from Venezuela part of his hidden agenda to make money?

Richard, I picked that one because I support a ban on lobbying after office, because it is potentially corrupting. The revolving door from wall st to head of state is wrong. Having an inside man is wrong... that's why I picked it. Then I read further and noted he revoked it, thus returning the status quo.

To be fair, you have posted a lot and most are internal issues. Lobbying, free speech etc have more global relevance for me. I can only read what's written can't I? If you follow the drop sections they tell you that all his good intentions were often questionable or not as stated.... i didn't edit it for my bias.

Before you tell me, I know Trump and Boris didn't work at wall st or in banking, but Rishi Sunak worked for Goldman Sachs as do many who are now part of government creating regulations that assist their former employer, then they go back to banking after office and get a golden hello... that kind of thing. I wonder what you think of Cohen and his pack of lies... the ones he was prepared to go to prison for. Why would he do that?

tokeless wrote: If you follow the drop sections they tell you that all his good intentions were often questionable or not as stated.... i didn't edit it for my bias.

The bias is in those doing the writing. They can’t just post his actions at let the readers decide intentions for themselves. Oh no…they must put in their narrative opinion of what his intentions might have been. And it works, because then you come along and instead of deciding on the actions by their own merits you are more than willing to immediately pick up the banner and say, “they tell you…”

tokeless wrote: I wonder what you think of Cohen and his pack of lies... the ones he was prepared to go to prison for. Why would he do that?

I think Cohen and his pack are very similar to Lance Armstrong and the US cycling team. They are doping like everyone else in the sport and got caught. And being one of the wealthiest men in the world he has “FU” money that hires him the best attorneys and PR managers. So he was not actually risking prison and he knew it.

The bias is in those doing the writing. They can’t just post his actions at let the readers decide intentions for themselves. Oh no…they must put in their narrative opinion of what his intentions might have been. And it works, because then you come along and instead of deciding on the actions by their own merits you are more than willing to immediately pick up the banner and say, “they tell you…”[/quote]

Richard, you accuse me of just reading what was put out instead of looking further. You send me a link, so I read some of it further... now you say the writings contained bias and readers should be able to decide for themselves.... but, if the information is incomplete, their decision of whether it is correct or not wouldn't be as accurate if they looked further...

I'm getting personal accounts of deaths connected to the vaccine. In these cases, the individuals took the vaccines and, at some point, became unwell. Later death resulted and the cause of death officially classed as caused by the virus.
So, we have two conclusions:
(1) The people affected suffered a viral infection but the vaccine already administered failed to have any impact whatsoever.
(2) The vaccine itself was the cause of death.
Don't ask me which as I don't know.
Other than fatalities, some are suffering ill health which is ongoing. Such as hair loss.
I must say I feel very sorry for those affected. Anyone with a family and job is going to be under pressure to take these vaccines. Most people assume that so-called experts know what's best. They lack my own awful experience with the NHS and, indeed, the time needed to look at the information. Put simply, the last thing I'd do is say, "Told you so," as circumstances vary.
Do I now accept Candid's opinion that it's deliberate? My take is this simply:
We react in different ways to foreign substances in the body. It's absurd to suggest there's a vaccine for flu. Some people are reacting badly and, in some cases, dying, while others may not be affected. My grandad smoked very heavily all his life and lived till about 88 till finally he got cancer. Yet others died younger due to smoking.
It amazes me the "geniuses" at YouTube who ban this kind of basic information could be so deluded.
Those who rejected this vaccine made the right choice. Very wise I'd say.

tokeless wrote:Richard, you accuse me of just reading what was put out instead of looking further. You send me a link, so I read some of it further... now you say the writings contained bias and readers should be able to decide for themselves.... but, if the information is incomplete, their decision of whether it is correct or not wouldn't be as accurate if they looked further...

Because it was a wiki page I’m unclear if you looking further means reading how others have chosen to interpret his motives or you mean that you looked further and discovered it was actions you disagree with, eg allowing lobbyists.

I don’t agree with all of his actions. I agree with you the lobbyists/government interaction is a bad thing. But it is not like this is unique to Trump or Hillary, etc.

Still, across all of his actions I don’t see a person making decisions to install himself as leader of the 4th Reich, or to position himself to be the next Jeff Besos. I see a person making decisions based on certain principles, certain values he believes in and promotes, like the action not to deport Venezuelans.

The bottom line is you want Trump to be this super villain and he simply isn’t. He did nothing so extraordinarily evil than any other past president.

Could wedding bells be in the air?

I see a person making decisions based on certain principles, certain values he believes in and promotes, like the action not to deport Venezuelans.

For 18 months, then square one again. Why didn't he give permanent status with the constitutional protections? Was it for his benefit that EO so he could say "Look at what a good president I am", or other reason? If you look at the details you find the facts.

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PEIC or PACEI), also called the Voter Fraud Commission, was a Presidential Commission established by Donald Trump that ran from May 11, 2017 to January 3, 2018.[1][2] The Trump administration said the commission would review claims of voter fraud, improper registration, and voter suppression.

This is an interesting one. Wanting citizens data and information such as demographics, social security numbers, criminal records and other person identifying information. This was considered a threat to voting ability and rights because if you want to exclude a person from voting it's possible with this information. It was considered by a voting law expert to be enabling voter suppression. GW Bush was accused of similar when up against Gore... targeted probable Gore voters in Florida. Obviously untrue and nothing to see here.

tokeless wrote:I see a person making decisions based on certain principles, certain values he believes in and promotes, like the action not to deport Venezuelans.

For 18 months, then square one again. Why didn't he give permanent status with the constitutional protections? Was it for his benefit that EO so he could say "Look at what a good president I am", or other reason? If you look at the details you find the facts.

The details being it was only a temporary stay on deportation?

Look at how you twist that into your own reasons. Just because it isn’t how you would have done if you were king for a day, doesn’t make his actions racist, xenophobic, or fascist.

It’s like you read and see he gave 18 months, but you would make it permanent so your conclusion is he’s somehow the super villain you wish he was.

Again, he’s not. He stopped deportation of Venezuelans which was a good thing. But you struggle to acknowledge even that.

tokeless wrote:The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PEIC or PACEI), also called the Voter Fraud Commission, was a Presidential Commission established by Donald Trump that ran from May 11, 2017 to January 3, 2018.[1][2] The Trump administration said the commission would review claims of voter fraud, improper registration, and voter suppression.

This is an interesting one. Wanting citizens data and information such as demographics, social security numbers, criminal records and other person identifying information. This was considered a threat to voting ability and rights because if you want to exclude a person from voting it's possible with this information. It was considered by a voting law expert to be enabling voter suppression. GW Bush was accused of similar when up against Gore... targeted probable Gore voters in Florida. Obviously untrue and nothing to see here.

This isn’t a Trump issue. This is a basic question of who has the right to vote. The dog whistle that anyone in the US doesn’t have the right to vote is absolute crap dragged out every single election by one party to claim racism.

Do you not agree election integrity is important tokeless?

So again you will twist the narrative to fit how you would enact a committee to look into election integrity if you were king for a day. You would look into it how exactly? Without using social security numbers?

What’s the law in the UK. When you vote what ID is required?

The details being it was only a temporary stay on deportation?

No, the issue was about the values and principles. You believe because he did the prevention of deportation it was evidence of that. I am asking why didn't he go the whole hog and give them permanent status? Maybe, he did what he did because it benefitted him to do that, you know, like politicians having photo opportunities with children and other cuddly things... good for the image and votes. Yes, I'm being cynical about politics in general, not just Trump. It's all image politics, shiny suits and promises. He had the power to go full on, yet chose not to... why not?

Look at how you twist that into your own reasons. Just because it isn’t how you would have done if you were king for a day, doesn’t make his actions racist, xenophobic, or fascist.

No, that's fact. I didn't influence or twist his decision. The fact is he gave temporary status for 18 months. I haven't mentioned racist or fascist in this instance, so try not use it to tarnish my point.

It’s like you read and see he gave 18 months, but you would make it permanent so your conclusion is he’s somehow the super villain you wish he was.

Again, it's a fact what he did. Why not go full status? That's the question. If I were in his position and could have, I would look at the reasons and then make my decision. What were his reasons not to? I suggest its because he didn't want to, he just needed the brownie points.

Again, he’s not. He stopped deportation of Venezuelans which was a good thing. But you struggle to acknowledge even that.[/quote]

I don't have to acknowledge it Richard as it's a fact of what he did. It was a good thing, but I question his motives. He's a politician... they all have motives, good, bad and self serving.
Trump is loyal to those who are loyal to him... Roger Stone was loyal and defied a subpoena to testify against him. Trump pardoned him. It's quid pro quo. Should Trump have done that? Go against a legal process? He had the power to do it and save himself too.