James105

Brace yourselves lefties... 'they' are coming back: This is your friendly reminder that: 1. You do not have to use Twitter if the thought of other people having different opinions to you and being allowed to voice them offends you. 2. Twitter is a private company and can set its own rules. You can start your own platform if you want an echo chamber. 3. You do not have to follow any of the returning accounts and are free to block them if that makes you feel better. 4. Offence is taken, not given.

Sure, and thats no different to 2014 is it when they had a chance to do something about it. Now they need to move on and accept the result from 8 years ago. People on here that complain when the likes of Trump lose badly should take a good hard look in the mirror I think.

There are 5m people in Scotland. There are 55m in England. It's ridiculous to suggest that those 5m in Scotland should have equal weight with the 55m in England on matters that affect the UK as a whole. England does not even have a say on matters that purely affect England. Scottish MPs in Westminster have the ability to vote against bills passed that only affect England, whereas English MPs cannot vote against measures decided in Scottish parliament. There is an imbalance of democracy for sure here, but is not in England's favour. Independence is just a distraction to tell Scots to look over there at the nasty English and ignore the mess she is making of the NHS, Education and the drugs issues in Scotland. Perhaps if she focused on the stuff within her control and not on the stuff outside of her control Scotland would be doing better and the Scots would complain less.

I don't recall England getting a vote on whether or not we actually want to be part of a union with Scotland. Did I miss it? Surely it's Englands turn to have a say before Scotland gets another go. The amount of complaining the Scots have been doing since (I think) Braveheart was released is starting to grate a bit so you would probably get your wish if we were allowed a vote on this. At least the Scots had a chance to have their say on this - that's one more go than the English have had.

Breaking news: The tail finds out that it cannot wag the dog.

Defence from what exactly? Murder? I'm pretty sure that a right-wing self identifying nazi will be subject to the exact same punishment for this as someone who identifies as "non-binary", which I believe in that state is an entire life sentence behind bars with no parole. The left are in denial as they wanted to portray this as right-wing homophobic bigotry but once again (just like the incident with that french guy Jessie Smollet) they have been left disappointed that this is not the case and will try and brush this unfortunate incident under the carpet and focus on Jan 6 or something.

CNN have also been doing some misgendering. Just another fine example of the hypocrisy of the left I think. https://nypost.com/2022/11/23/cnns-alisyn-camerota-stunned-by-anderson-aldrichs-nonbinary-revelation/ Kind of ruins the narrative a bit doesn't it?

I can see 3 examples of misgendering in what you said there. The murderer has made it perfectly clear their pronouns are they/their as they identify as non-binary. A fine example of right-wing transphobic bigotry right here.

No. Any evidence of this spurious claim?

Sigh. The left spread lies all the time, it's just that you happen to agree with them as you agree with the agenda/narrative. The "assault on the capital" makes it sound like it was something quite major (something akin to the BLM riots and violence that was incited by the left), but all I can recall was seeing some chap with a viking hat meandering around a building.

No. Ukraine and Russia were the 2 most corrupt regimes in Europe prior to this war and I suspect only a small percentage of that money will end up where it's needed, just like all the other foreign aid provided to corrupt countries around the world. Call me a cynic if you will, but with the constant injection of cash from UK/USA etc to Ukraine, Russia making bank from oil/gas being sold in rubles, I'm not seeing much of an incentive for either side to get around the negotiating table as they are making lots of money from this, and let's not pretend that either of their leaders really "care" about their people. Ukraine have also joined Spain/Portugal to host the 2030 world cup even though they are thousands of miles away from Spain/Portugal which makes me wonder where their priorities are at, or if they are just being opportunistic with the sympathy they have garnered by the propaganda painting them as the "good guys", when the reality, as always, will be somewhat greyer. I have sympathy for the Russian and Ukrainian people of course who didn't ask for this nor will see any of this money (they are just pawns after all), but I feel the West is, once again, being played.

Yes, no good deed should go unpunished.. right? Shame that the UK didn't make put the burden of repayment of this loan on the shoulders of Germany as a condition of their surrender and then this headline may well have read "why is Germany struggling more than other countries".

It's not just the population size, it's also a country without any culture of football so the stadiums built at huge cost, built by migrant labour in unbearably hot conditions are literally going to be used for just this 4 weeks. Qatar initially promised they would build "12 air conditioned stadiums" so that the competition could be held in summer as normal (another obvious and predictable lie). Since Qatar will be unceremoniously dumped out of the World Cup in the group stage (as even though they are hosting they shouldn't really be entering a team for this due to their incredibly low standard of football) and then the Qatari people will go back to not caring about football after the first week. Greta also seems unusually quiet about the carbon cost of needing to build all this stuff that every other country (and there are lots of them) with a culture of football already has and could have been used. The decision to host it in Qatar 12 years ago seems as ridiculous today as it did back then (obviously based on bribe money) and everything that was predicted came to pass. I'm always baffled as to why they are so reluctant to let England host it again, a country with a football culture that would not need to build a single new stadium to accommodate it. I remember England was one of the bidders for this one, but Blatter said that USA was second choice even though they had hosted it as recently as 1994. The next joke is that for the 2030 world cup that Spain/Portugal have bid for (which makes sense as those countries are literally next door to each other) is now a Spain/Portugal/Ukraine(!) bid, for all the obvious virtue signalling reasons you can imagine.

Both sides used bots. The left think that only their bots should be valid. I'm sure once the bots were taken away the result would be the same if not higher for reinstatement of Trump as the majority of people still believe in the concept of freedom of speech. It's only the reinstatement of a Twitter account that Musk could easily enable with or without a poll. Quite why people work themselves up into a frothing mess about this is beyond comprehension.

The thing is, I really, really do not care if Twitter makes money or not. I do not own shares in it. Since you are so concerned about Twitters loss of advertising revenue I presume that you must own some of their stock as I really cannot think of any other reason why you would care. If you do have Twitter shares then don't worry too much, Elon Musk has quite a good track record of running businesses so I'm sure you will recoup your losses in time - you will just need to be patient.

Why on earth would I believe that advertisers should be compelled to do anything? Where did you get that from in what I posted? You may believe that every corporation has the same world view as yourself, but they really don't. Their goal is to make money. If advertising on Twitter helps them do that then they will continue to use it. They didn't mind advertising on Twitter knowing that the Taliban accounts were never suspended so why would they care if Trump is back on it?

This seems to be upsetting all the right people... lovely. If Trump being on Twitter upsets you then remember it is your choice whether or not to follow him and read his posts (if he actually posts anything again), and you are free to block him if that makes you feel better. You are equally free to not use Twitter at all and receive all your news from your safe spaces (CNN, Guardian, Morning Star etc). Ricky Gervais made an educational video for all those who are concerned that they might read something they don't like on Twitter:

Woke, soy latte drinking "engineer" stealing a living at Twitter who overestimates his importance writes an article. Writing that article is probably the most work he has done all year. If these people are who they claim to be why wouldn't they be able to produce evidence of the work they have done? As mentioned, it seems like a perfectly reasonable question and one that anyone who writes code will easily be able to produce with about 5 minutes effort if they wanted to keep their well paid jobs. The only reason Twitter would go down is if the "engineers" built a house of cards, or via deliberate sabotage, and if that is the case Musk is better off without them and replacing them with more capable or trustworthy people.

Do you not find it amazing that even though Twitter has closed its offices, laid off a lot of staff, that Twitter seems to still be working just as it was before? Twitter is a platform that others use to create content (not it's staff), and I cannot recall seeing any significant updates or feature additions over the last few years which kind of begs the question of "what exactly are these software engineers doing with their days?", which is the question that Musk appears to be asking and is quite a reasonable one imho. It's not that complex an app to maintain and they (probably) have 1,500 - 2,000 developers that are probably quite well paid. I've no idea who slate.com are but I imagine the person who wrote that article is also stealing a living hence the reason he is jumping to the defence of fellow living stealers.

Ok halfway there, now we just need the bars to be legally allowed to open (and sell alcohol) for all the matches which will of course help the Thai gov recoup some of this money by the hugely increased spending in these bars that will occur during the world cup period.

I don't get it. Does Thailand not have broadcasters that can sell advertising to cover the costs of showing the football? The world cup is literally the most popular sporting event in the world attracting hundreds of millions (if not a billion plus) viewers. Obviously it is quite late in the day for broadcasters to sell advertising space now but I'm baffled how they have managed to mess this up. I didn't realise TV companies showing football relied on government intervention and I have never heard of a country not managing to be able to show this before. I've also heard they have delayed the decision to decide whether or not to allow bars to stay open until 4am to show the 2am games until 29th November, a full 9 days after the world cup has started, and even then they are only (apparently) planning to trial it in Phuket first! It's only a 4 week tournament so by the time the "trial" ends the world cup will probably be over.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/12/the-threats-and-violence-twitter-wont-police/

I think you are confusing 'fact-checking' with fact-hiding, as evidenced by the banning of the NY Times when they factually reported on the Hunter Biden laptop as this could have had an impact on who they wanted to win the last election in the US.

Twitter did allow hate speech, as long as it was directed at people who didn't vote the correct way.

I presume if someone was to "follow the money" far enough this report would be sponsored by the likes of Philip Morris. Didn't "medical professionals" back in the day endorse smoking proper cigarettes as being good for your health, whilst on the take from big tobacco? One day people will wake up and realise they are constantly being lied to, but I don't think that will happen in my lifetime. It goes without saying that inhaling anything in your lungs is less healthy than not doing so, but I find it very difficult to believe that a vape can come close to competing with the 7000 chemicals (250 known to be harmful) that make up tobacco smoke, yet the focus always seems to be on how "dangerous" vapes are whilst ignoring the dangers of actual smoking. If they really cared about your health they would simply ban tobacco smoking. Have to hand it to the tobacco companies though, they have done a good job painting vapes as evil, and not the products they make. It's quite the achievement that they can legally make and sell literal addictive poison and have governments in their pockets banning (probably much, much safer) competing products that could hit their profit margins.