*** Official Republican CIVIL WAR Thread ***

[Sanlmar]

Cuck or self proclaimed god damned Martyr?

I have a feeling Donald will explain the Republican failure to you.

[sonatine]

the arizona gop just tweeted out a picture of trump dressed in 1776 garb.

problem is, they based it off a painting of benedict arnold.

[Walter Sobchak]

Newsmax is fucking CANCELLED.

These RINO cucks have committed treason by helping the Mexicans and Chinese steal our freedom.

Fox and Newsmax having to do this because they’re petrified of the lawsuits is so amusing. It’s like saying we are going to take this commercial break where we are forced to tell the truth and then we’ll return to our normally scheduled programming of lying to you 24/7.

Exactly. The voting machine companies can prove that what these assholes are saying is false, that they are lying maliciously and that it is costing them money. That means an 8-figure judgment against them minimum.

[Walter Sobchak]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1341539941373911041

Just a drop in the bucket of abject atrocities by the Trump Administration but who wants civilian killers pardoned?

The lobby for military "contractors" who do soldiers' jobs while wearing corporate uniforms, and at far higher cost, for which we taxpayers foot the bill.

Glad to see that swamp draining so quickly.

[Walter Sobchak]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1341574902084759552

Lol even the most craven sycophants are getting cucked now.

she can agree all she wants, until she does it STFU

she's held this thing up for months so Trump wouldn't look good before the election but you fucking moron libtards seem to forget all your own party's problems

The House has passed a bill amending the payments to $2,000.

McConnell is holding it up in the Senate.

[dwai]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1341539941373911041

Just a drop in the bucket of abject atrocities by the Trump Administration but who wants civilian killers pardoned?

The lobby for military "contractors" who do soldiers' jobs while wearing corporate uniforms, and at far higher cost, for which we taxpayers foot the bill.

Glad to see that swamp draining so quickly.

nick slatten, a great American military hero

[Walter Sobchak]

Civil War? I think something is gonna go down, some trigger fingers are itchy.

Me, lets just say I have alot of ammo and I keep buying more.

You only need one round.

[Walter Sobchak]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1343915971480842240

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1343915972391038977

so this was literally all about 'section 230' aka no one can say mean things about his diapers on sosh media.

The funny thing is, if section 230 is repealed, he and all his violent right-wing lying extremist pals will be the first to be completely wiped off of the internet. If you think any company is going to let that shit sit on their sites just waiting for the inevitable lawsuits, think again.

[gauchojake]

Lin Wood seems to be coming unglued at the seams

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumpi...rous-pedophile

[Rick Sanchez]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1344727635000229890

[sonatine]

[Sanlmar]

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...


Civil War


I constantly think about Trumps promise made to the GOP in 2016 that he would not run as an independent. I believe this is germane to this conversation somehow. Just the notion that it was necessary.

[Walter Sobchak]

Hawley is virtue signalling to Trump cultists that he's their man in 2024.

[sonatine]

honestly i kinda wonder if one of the pretexts for the 'stop the steal' movement is so republicans can just cheat their fucking asses off from now on and just point at 2020 like its some sort of moral justification.

[Walter Sobchak]

honestly i kinda wonder if one of the pretexts for the 'stop the steal' movement is so republicans can just cheat their fucking asses off from now on and just point at 2020 like its some sort of moral justification.

Cheat how? They already try to suppress minority voters with varying degrees of success depending on the state, and they already gerrymander the fuck out of states so they can control the House delegations and the state legislatures even when they lose by 10 points. Who needs to cheat when you can do those things legally?

[Dan Druff]

honestly i kinda wonder if one of the pretexts for the 'stop the steal' movement is so republicans can just cheat their fucking asses off from now on and just point at 2020 like its some sort of moral justification.

Cheat how? They already try to suppress minority voters with varying degrees of success depending on the state, and they already gerrymander the fuck out of states so they can control the House delegations and the state legislatures even when they lose by 10 points. Who needs to cheat when you can do those things legally?

lol at thinking gerrymandering only goes one way

[Dan Druff]

The Section 230 talk is often misunderstood.

I don't want to see it repealed. Section 230 protects me and this site, as it disallows treating me as a "publisher", thus protecting me from liability if users here post illegal or libelous content.

However, Republicans make a valid point that Twitter and other large social media companies ARE turning themselves into publishers, by curating their content for editorial reasons. Thus, if they don't want their platform to distribute a story about Hunter Biden's laptop, and edit/remove such content because they simply don't like it, then they start to look a lot more like publishers.

Notice that I don't do that here. I have never once removed content about politics or current events I disagree with.

Of course, a site owner should always have the right to remove material which violates internal rules -- such as illegal material or harassment. However, removing material based upon political affiliation does start to make one look a lot more like an actual publisher.

Now, I still think people should have the right to put up their own forum where they censor ideologically. I don't agree with running forums that way, but I don't think that should strip people of their section 230 protections.

However, there's a large difference between a hugely influential platform like Twitter, and an 8th tier poker forum.

I think Section 230 needs to be modified, clearly defining the difference between large social media and everything else, and then making two sets of rules -- one for the smaller, specialty sites, and one for the large, influential sites.

I think that would fix it. Basically tie the large sites having Section 230 protection to the fair and equitable treatment of political censorship, sort of along the lines of the now-antiquated Fairness Doctrine for TV and radio from several decades ago.

[Walter Sobchak]

The Section 230 talk is often misunderstood.

I don't want to see it repealed. Section 230 protects me and this site, as it disallows treating me as a "publisher", thus protecting me from liability if users here post illegal or libelous content.

However, Republicans make a valid point that Twitter and other large social media companies ARE turning themselves into publishers, by curating their content for editorial reasons. Thus, if they don't want their platform to distribute a story about Hunter Biden's laptop, and edit/remove such content because they simply don't like it, then they start to look a lot more like publishers.

Notice that I don't do that here. I have never once removed content about politics or current events I disagree with.

Of course, a site owner should always have the right to remove material which violates internal rules -- such as illegal material or harassment. However, removing material based upon political affiliation does start to make one look a lot more like an actual publisher.

Now, I still think people should have the right to put up their own forum where they censor ideologically. I don't agree with running forums that way, but I don't think that should strip people of their section 230 protections.

However, there's a large difference between a hugely influential platform like Twitter, and an 8th tier poker forum.

I think Section 230 needs to be modified, clearly defining the difference between large social media and everything else, and then making two sets of rules -- one for the smaller, specialty sites, and one for the large, influential sites.

I think that would fix it. Basically tie the large sites having Section 230 protection to the fair and equitable treatment of political censorship, sort of along the lines of the now-antiquated Fairness Doctrine for TV and radio from several decades ago.

Good luck getting that one past the Supreme Court.

Anyway, if social media lost section 230 protection the crazy cultists would be completely wiped off of those sites rather than just sometimes labeled/removed. If you lost section 230 protection, you'd take a hatchet to this place.

[Walter Sobchak]

Cheat how? They already try to suppress minority voters with varying degrees of success depending on the state, and they already gerrymander the fuck out of states so they can control the House delegations and the state legislatures even when they lose by 10 points. Who needs to cheat when you can do those things legally?

lol at thinking gerrymandering only goes one way

It shouldn't go any ways, but the Supreme Court said it's legal. Right now the Democrats' House majority would be a lot bigger if not for gerrymandering, and the Democrats would control the state legislatures of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

[Dan Druff]

The Section 230 talk is often misunderstood.

I don't want to see it repealed. Section 230 protects me and this site, as it disallows treating me as a "publisher", thus protecting me from liability if users here post illegal or libelous content.

However, Republicans make a valid point that Twitter and other large social media companies ARE turning themselves into publishers, by curating their content for editorial reasons. Thus, if they don't want their platform to distribute a story about Hunter Biden's laptop, and edit/remove such content because they simply don't like it, then they start to look a lot more like publishers.

Notice that I don't do that here. I have never once removed content about politics or current events I disagree with.

Of course, a site owner should always have the right to remove material which violates internal rules -- such as illegal material or harassment. However, removing material based upon political affiliation does start to make one look a lot more like an actual publisher.

Now, I still think people should have the right to put up their own forum where they censor ideologically. I don't agree with running forums that way, but I don't think that should strip people of their section 230 protections.

However, there's a large difference between a hugely influential platform like Twitter, and an 8th tier poker forum.

I think Section 230 needs to be modified, clearly defining the difference between large social media and everything else, and then making two sets of rules -- one for the smaller, specialty sites, and one for the large, influential sites.

I think that would fix it. Basically tie the large sites having Section 230 protection to the fair and equitable treatment of political censorship, sort of along the lines of the now-antiquated Fairness Doctrine for TV and radio from several decades ago.

Good luck getting that one past the Supreme Court.

Anyway, if social media lost section 230 protection the crazy cultists would be completely wiped off of those sites rather than just sometimes labeled/removed. If you lost section 230 protection, you'd take a hatchet to this place.

As I said, I don't support repeal of section 230, but something does have to be done about the huge social media sites engaging in ideological censorship.

Perhaps a separate law is needed to handle that. The Hunter Biden NY Post censorship on Twitter and Facebook was an abomination, and very telling regarding the true intentions of these sites.

These sites wield incredible power, and it's clearly being abused.