Trump permanently banned from twitter

wtf is bitchute

[edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitChute holy shit hangook you really are way off the ****** deep end dude]

wtf is bitchute

[edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitChute holy shit hangook you really are way off the ****** deep end dude]

BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful content.

*DeMartino has entered the chat*

BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful content.

*DeMartino has entered the chat*

I would only say that tyler, you are free to check out BitChute and make your own call as to whether that description is accurate. Maybe you will think so, maybe you won't. Up to you. I'd only ask that before you decide someone is promoting hate or not, listen to what they have to say. Don't rely on a single quote, taken out of context (or even not a direct quote) written by a journalist making a smear piece. I think that is fair.

I have only two people I sub to on BitChute, but both are also established YouTubers. Neither supports hate.

Not that there's really any point in arguing this, but...

Are you aware that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer didn't stand on a podium, whipping up a crowd with phony election fraud grievances, and then encourage everyone to go march on a church that subsequently got burned. If they had, you could probably make a like-for-like comparison. Since they didn't, you sound like a crackpot.

No, but they did do the stupid Kente Cloth stunt.

Well "Hands up, don't shoot" is based on something that has been demonstrably proven to be false be the Obama's own DoJ under Eric Holder, yet is still presented as an example of an unjust killing. The people didn't even wait for the full autopsy with George Floyd before declaring it a murder (and same with the cop that died after the Capitol Riot).

Sorry, but people have to at least wait for an ME's report before declaring something wrong. And if you whip people up and declare something "unjust" without waiting for facts, then well, you're playing smart politics. And I wouldn't necessarily blame you or say it's totally wrong. I mean, Trump supporters don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about that tactic. But spare the "our side is good, your side is bad" nonsense.

If you can't see that kind of stuff and realize how across the board it is, you're basically a sports fan playing at a politics. And not a sophisticated sports fan, one of those dumb ones that paints themselves team colors and insists every call should go their way and they never commit penalties. And when it's blatant, they praise the guy for "sending the other team a message."

Nothing wrong with sending the other team a message. Just ask Kevin McHale.

I would only say that tyler, you are free to check out BitChute and make your own call

why would i support a platform that supports hate though? i'm sure there are normal people who post there for... reasons(?), but i'm not going to give traffic to a site that has holocaust denial/holocaust glorification or anything like that. i mean... the website's raison d'etre is promoting stuff that got flagged as hate speech on other sites. whether or not you think any specific video (or creator) qualifies as promoting hate speech doesn't make the site's overall mission any less despicable.

Lol so you didn't even know what Bitchute is but now you're an expert after a quick glance at Wikipedia and Waygook's resident Louis Farrakhan telling you what your opinion should be.

i dont know what in my post leads you to believe i think i'm an expert. but i've read enough after a quick google search to decide i don't want to use the site

Lol so you didn't even know what Bitchute is but now you're an expert after a quick glance at Wikipedia and Waygook's resident Louis Farrakhan telling you what your opinion should be.

Did someone trigger the....*snowflake*? 

The people didn't even wait for the full autopsy with George Floyd before declaring it a murder.

Sorry, but people have to at least wait for an ME's report before declaring something wrong. And if you whip people up and declare something "unjust" without waiting for facts, then well, you're playing smart politics. And I wouldn't necessarily blame you or say it's totally wrong. I mean, Trump supporters don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about that tactic. But spare the "our side is good, your side is bad" nonsense.

I agree with your point, but I think you could've chosen a *much* better example. Like any other example at all.

The guy died with a police officer using an illegal hold on him. Even if he had died from a heart attack or something, clearly the officer sitting on his throat would have had something to do with it.
One doesn't need an autopsy to be 99.9% sure that that was what killed the man, one way or another.
Of course, getting the autopsy removed any vestiges of doubt, which is why autopsies should be done whenever possible. But either way, I don't think people were wrong to call it murder before the autopsy reports came back.

I mean, what was the alternative? That Mr. Floyd died of cancer during the 7 minutes and 45 seconds he was being restrained? Not entirely impossible, but nonetheless unlikely to the point of being absurd.

I am still waiting on that.  Cases are still being fought and winding their way through.  Lin Wood, Syndney Powell, and Mike Lindell amongst others haven't gone anywhere.  It was fraud and it was stolen.  Justice will come to the evil doers soon enough. 

Clearly you're not a reasonable person as Powell's defence team has argued in her defamation defence against Dominion Voting Systems 

“No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,”

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/sidney-powell-s-legal-defense-reasonable-people-wouldn-t-believe-n1261809

I agree with your point, but I think you could've chosen a *much* better example. Like any other example at all.

The guy died with a police officer using an illegal hold on him. Even if he had died from a heart attack or something, clearly the officer sitting on his throat would have had something to do with it.
One doesn't need an autopsy to be 99.9% sure that that was what killed the man, one way or another.
Of course, getting the autopsy removed any vestiges of doubt, which is why autopsies should be done whenever possible. But either way, I don't think people were wrong to call it murder before the autopsy reports came back.

I mean, what was the alternative? That Mr. Floyd died of cancer during the 7 minutes and 45 seconds he was being restrained? Not entirely impossible, but nonetheless unlikely to the point of being absurd.

They ruled it a homicide and that he wasn't strangled or asphyxiated. Now, that doesn't mean Chauvin is innocent because the issue is his failure to render aid and indifference to the man's condition and to do so for a sustained period, regardless of cause of death. During that time it went from negligence, to manslaughter, to 2nd degree murder over those minutes.

But it wasn't the knee that killed him. It was the decision not to render age and to continue to restrain.

why would i support a platform that supports hate though? i'm sure there are normal people who post there for... reasons(?), but i'm not going to give traffic to a site that has holocaust denial/holocaust glorification or anything like that. i mean... the website's raison d'etre is promoting stuff that got flagged as hate speech on other sites. whether or not you think any specific video (or creator) qualifies as promoting hate speech doesn't make the site's overall mission any less despicable.

Actually, it's just open. It's going to attract all kinds of stuff, including hate. But if you follow who gets youtube strikes for what, there's stuff that is awful, but also stuff that probably should have remained as part of free discourse. Anyways, being an open platform is not supporting.

I mean, it's awfully hard to draw the lines on conspiracy theories. The standards weren't impartially held when it came to Trump. You could spread any theory, no matter how baseless and it wouldn't attract the same ire. You could say stuff about whites or Christians that if it was said about other groups, would get you banned. The lack of consistency in youtube enforcing its own rules would naturally lead to this.

Anyways, I'm more of a wide-open platform, let anyone say whatever person. Let some black guy rant about why he thinks white are demons and have Nazis as long as they don't actually promote violence. Same free speech standard as the public square. As long as you let anyone speak and only regulate time, place and manner, then you're content-neutral and NOT platforming hate anymore than the City of San Francisco.

Regardless, up to you. I would say, it's a little unfair to declare someone platforming and promoting hate without taking a look for yourself, especially these days with how those accusations get tossed around so...liberally.

Nothing wrong with sending the other team a message. Just ask Kevin McHale.

And if you have that kind of view regarding politics, same as your sports, fine. But don't expect to be taken seriously as far as analysis goes and at that point you're at the state of mindless tribalism and have reverted us to humanity at 5000 B.C., with votes as your weapon, not clubs.

They ruled it a homicide and that he wasn't strangled or asphyxiated. Now, that doesn't mean Chauvin is innocent because the issue is his failure to render aid and indifference to the man's condition and to do so for a sustained period, regardless of cause of death. During that time it went from negligence, to manslaughter, to 2nd degree murder over those minutes.

But it wasn't the knee that killed him. It was the decision not to render age and to continue to restrain.

The original autopsies agree that he died due to neck compression.

Some secondary autopsies indicate that it was actually asphyxia that killed him.
 
Either way, the knee killed him. All the sources I've seen agree on this.

The original autopsies agree that he died due to neck compression.

Some secondary autopsies indicate that it was actually asphyxia that killed him.
 
Either way, the knee killed him. All the sources I've seen agree on this.

Your honour the explosion from the bomb I set off did not kill those people.

It's the force from the tissues and bones in their bodies being ripped apart that killed them!

The original autopsies agree that he died due to neck compression.

Actually due to "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."

Also, multiple autopsies disagreeing is NOT good for the prosecution in this. Also, what isn't mentioned in these is the level of fentanyl in his system would be considered grounds for overdose. That autopsy is in for a grueling haul. That's why I say it is better to focus on Chauvin failing to render aid and to continue as the man went through increasing states of distress and his eventual death.

I was simplifying the terminology for you troglodytes. :)

However you parse it, it was the knee that ultimately killed him.
To what end are you arguing against this?

I was simplifying the terminology for you troglodytes. :)

However you parse it, it was the knee that ultimately killed him.
To what end are you arguing against this?

Alright, lets go with Michael Brown instead. And not just that, the whole cops shooting unarmed black people. Question- Without googling, how many unarmed black men were shot by cops last year?

There's been polling done on this and unsurprisingly, the numbers are divorced from reality. Also, there is a partisan slant to them.

And since we were talking about politicians pushing dangerous hoaxes, again- Russia and that Trump called Nazis "fine people". The number of people who believe those things is enormous, and that had a massive effect on division in the country. So yes, Pelosi and Schumer have done as much as Trump to be responsible for riots and violence, which is to say, in my view, nothing. They all flirted with stuff and did politician stuff, but ultimately neither are responsible for what happened.

Partisanship sucks. But, I mean, what else can one expect with only 2 parties?