Musk the useful idiot

[Inderpland]

15 minutes ago, freedomnow said:

Part of it was his tranny son getting ruined/influenced by Woke/LGBT+ stuff to paraphrase him, I believe...

The key part of your post being "I believe..."

[mogandave]

17 hours ago, Inderpland said:

Yes, several. I'll get back to you tomorrow since I'm heading out. Please remind me if you haven't heard anything by early afternoon.

The examples ?

[Inderpland]

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

The examples ?

Don Lemon says Elon Musk canceled his deal with X after ‘tense’ interview

 

https://observer.com/2022/12/elon-musk-suspend-twitter-account-list/

 

'The next day, he suspended the accounts of several journalists who recently wrote about him and his companies, suggesting they also violated Twitter’s doxxing rules. Those affected include reporters for the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Voice of America and other news organization'

[nauseus]

51 minutes ago, freedomnow said:

Part of it was his tranny son getting ruined/influenced by Woke/LGBT+ stuff to paraphrase him, I believe...

 

Look up and you can see that you have misquoted me completely. Those words were written by interpland.

 

Be careful. 

[tgw]

21 hours ago, mogandave said:

Why do you want Musk taken down?

 

The purchase of Twitter is very suspect, and then he promoted TENET media.
He also unblocked many pro-Russian accounts on Twitter.

I don't believe he's clean.

[mogandave]

On 9/7/2024 at 2:28 PM, Inderpland said:

Don Lemon says Elon Musk canceled his deal with X after ‘tense’ interview

 

https://observer.com/2022/12/elon-musk-suspend-twitter-account-list/

 

'The next day, he suspended the accounts of several journalists who recently wrote about him and his companies, suggesting they also violated Twitter’s doxxing rules. Those affected include reporters for the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Voice of America and other news organization'

Mid you see the Don Lemon interview and his demands? In any event, Lemon was not banned from X. 

 

Did they violate the doxxing rules? 

 

Seems a bit weak to me. A lot of people talking smack about Elon on X, and they’re not banned. 

[mogandave]

On 9/7/2024 at 6:19 PM, tgw said:

 

The purchase of Twitter is very suspect, and then he promoted TENET media.
He also unblocked many pro-Russian accounts on Twitter.

I don't believe he's clean.

Another Putin puppet no doubt 

[bendejo]

On 9/7/2024 at 4:19 AM, tgw said:

The purchase of Twitter is very suspect, and then he promoted TENET media.
He also unblocked many pro-Russian accounts on Twitter.

I don't believe he's clean.

 

I would say he is on his own side only, everything is just the means to move things forward.  He wants to be Lex Luther.  The guy may have shown brilliance in technology and enterprise, but his people skills (using that term loosely) are a catastrophe.  Say what you will about DT the guy is a pitchman that knows how to deliver to "his people" and knows how to make television work for him.  Look at the piles of cash he gets from the rubes.

World politics seems to be in the hands of brain-addled billionaires.

 

Oh, and he openly did an appeasement to Russia in cutting off satellite coms in Ukraine, about 2 years ago if you care to look it up.

 

[frank83628]

On 9/6/2024 at 5:16 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Ohh... but the list doesn't end there!  Trump and Musk share a laugh about a company firing workers who were attempting to organize union representation.

 

Trump, Musk LAUGH About Firing Workers For Organizing

 

 

 

UAW files federal labor charges against Donald Trump and Elon Musk after threatening workers on X interview

August 13, 2024

 

(CNN) — The United Auto Workers union on Tuesday filed federal labor charges against former President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk for threatening to intimidate workers who go on strike.

 

During Trump’s interview on X Monday night with Musk, who is also the principal owner of the social media platform, the pair discussed a potential role for Musk in Trump’s administration should he get reelected. Trump called Musk “the cutter,” and praised Musk for his anti-union stances.

 

“I look at what you do, you walk in and you just say, ‘You want to quit?’ They go on strike – I won’t mention the name of the company – but they go on strike, and you say, ‘That’s okay, you’re all gone. You’re all gone. Every one of you is gone,” Trump said.

 

Musk could be heard laughing and replying “yeah.”

 

(more)

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/13/business/uaw-trump-musk-charges/index.html

 

 

do you know what they were referring to in that out of context clip??

Edited September 9 by frank83628

[frank83628]

On 9/7/2024 at 6:19 PM, tgw said:

 

The purchase of Twitter is very suspect, and then he promoted TENET media.
He also unblocked many pro-Russian accounts on Twitter.

I don't believe he's clean.

so you don't think pro-Russians accounts are allowed a voice? 

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, bendejo said:

 

I would say he is on his own side only, everything is just the means to move things forward.  He wants to be Lex Luther.  The guy may have shown brilliance in technology and enterprise, but his people skills (using that term loosely) are a catastrophe.  Say what you will about DT the guy is a pitchman that knows how to deliver to "his people" and knows how to make television work for him.  Look at the piles of cash he gets from the rubes.

World politics seems to be in the hands of brain-addled billionaires.

 

Oh, and he openly did an appeasement to Russia in cutting off satellite coms in Ukraine, about 2 years ago if you care to look it up.

 

Yes, everyone the does not support the leftward slide of the country, and does not want the government deciding what people can hear is Lex Luther. 

 

Did you applaud or were you appalled when twitter (subsequently known as X) banned Trump from the platform? 

[brewsterbudgen]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

Yes, everyone the does not support the leftward slide of the country, and does not want the government deciding what people can hear is Lex Luther. 

 

Did you applaud or were you appalled when twitter (subsequently known as X) banned Trump from the platform? 

 

Trump incited a riot in an attempt to overthrow an election - obviously he had to be banned!!

[tgw]

23 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

so you don't think pro-Russians accounts are allowed a voice? 

 

oh I do!
they should just not be allowed to:

- lie, misrepresent, mislead, spread disinformation and propaganda
- be funded or paid by a criminal, antidemocratic foreign power
 

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

Trump incited a riot in an attempt to overthrow an election - obviously he had to be banned!!

Obviously 

[tgw]

1 hour ago, bendejo said:

 

I would say he is on his own side only, everything is just the means to move things forward.  He wants to be Lex Luther.  The guy may have shown brilliance in technology and enterprise, but his people skills (using that term loosely) are a catastrophe.  Say what you will about DT the guy is a pitchman that knows how to deliver to "his people" and knows how to make television work for him.  Look at the piles of cash he gets from the rubes.

World politics seems to be in the hands of brain-addled billionaires.

 

Oh, and he openly did an appeasement to Russia in cutting off satellite coms in Ukraine, about 2 years ago if you care to look it up.

 

 

yes, I know what he did.

Musk is an AH.

There was no reason for him to buy Twitter other than for promoting Trump's and Putin's interests.

I am just hoping he's under investigation.

[tgw]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

Another Putin puppet no doubt 

I wouldn't say a puppet. But maybe an accomplice.

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

oh I do!
they should just not be allowed to:

- lie, misrepresent, mislead, spread disinformation and propaganda
- be funded or paid by a criminal, antidemocratic foreign power
 

So only speech you approve of should be free, yes?

[tgw]

7 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Yes, everyone the does not support the leftward slide of the country, and does not want the government deciding what people can hear is Lex Luther. 

 

Did you applaud or were you appalled when twitter (subsequently known as X) banned Trump from the platform? 

 

I didn't applaud when Trump got banned.

They should have kept Trump on and then community-commented and fact checked every one of his posts.

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

yes, I know what he did.

Musk is an AH.

There was no reason for him to buy Twitter other than for promoting Trump's and Putin's interests.

I am just hoping he's under investigation.

I’m betting everyone that publicly supports Trump is under investigation 

[tgw]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

So only speech you approve of should be free, yes?

 

absolutely not.

honest speech should be absolutely free within the limitations of truth

 

[johng]

6 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Trump incited a riot in an attempt to overthrow an election - obviously he had to be banned!!

 

Rubbish !  he said to go and protest peacefully and patriotically

Twitter then deleted his account. 

[Liverpool Lou]

11 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

Trump incited a riot in an attempt to overthrow an election - obviously he had to be banned!!

You must mean the charge of which he was acquitted by the Senate?

Edited September 9 by Liverpool Lou

[ravip]

Just a thought.

IF the labor law of any country is fair towards ALL parties involved+ (employees & employers), would there be any use to have Unions?

[tgw]

14 minutes ago, ravip said:

Just a thought.

IF the labor law of any country is fair towards ALL parties involved+ (employees & employers), would there be any use to have Unions?

 

yes.

by definition "parties" aren't fair, they lobby for their members.

unions do have many good sides to them, but also some bad sides, for example they can unduly pressure businesses and governments into giving too many advantages to workers which leads to an erosion of the economy. one good example of that is France.
so it's not good when unions become too powerful, especially when the union is aligned with a political party. a factory workers' union for example would be aligned with socialists / communists and help their political agenda by blackmailing businesses.

now, where does the point of equilibrium between defending workers' rights and abuse of union's power lies is a good question for which I don't have a good answer right now.

Edited September 9 by tgw

[mogandave]

8 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

absolutely not.

honest speech should be absolutely free within the limitations of truth

 

So only the speech you decide is honest should be free?

[tgw]

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So only the speech you decide is honest should be free?

 

I already said that the question of what is truth and lie should be determined by some kind of neutral process, as well as a legal/judicial recourse. I don't know in detail how that would look, but of course, neutrality should be guaranteed, I guess one way is to let the opposing party research the facts and details and then present their case.

 

the main thing is that lies, disinformation and misrepresentations should be outlawed from politics and media.

(BTW, I am also in favour of banning lawyers from lying in legal matters)

 

I don't get your insistence in dragging me and my personal opinion into the decision making process.

 

is your real name "Tom Cotton" ?

 

 

Edited September 9 by tgw

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, tgw said:

 

I already said that the question of what is truth and lie should be determined by some kind of neutral process, as well as a legal/judicial recourse. I don't know in detail how that would look, but of course, neutrality should be guaranteed, I guess one way is to let the opposing party research the facts and details and then present their case.

the main thing is that lies should be outlawed.

 

I don't get your insistence in dragging me and my personal opinion into the decision making process.

 

is your real name "Tom Cotton" ?

 

 

So only speech that is determined to be true by a neutral body should be free, correct? 

 

How is the neutral body selected? 

[tgw]

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So only speech that is determined to be true by a neutral body should be free, correct? 

 

How is the neutral body selected? 

 

all speech should be free, but lies and disinformation will come back to bite their author with consequences if proven wrong.

 

Neutral body, etc. courts, process, fact checking ... all details for which I already said I have no clear idea on.
One thing I have a clear idea on, is that all sides of politics should be involved in fact checking.

And then ideally, the goal would be to present clear-cut cases to some sort of court or even a proper court which will then rule about the lie and apply the statutory penalties.

The clear-cut cases would have proven facts as a basis, leaving no room for interpretation and the court would then rule on that basis.

 

In the wake of what happened on social media in the past years, I consider this to be a matter of national security for democracies. Truth in politics and media.

Edited September 9 by tgw

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, tgw said:

 

all speech should be free, but lies and disinformation will come back to bite their author with consequences if proven wrong.

 

Neutral body, etc. courts, process, fact checking ... all details for which I already said I have no clear idea on.
One thing I have a clear idea on, is that all sides of politics should be involved in fact checking.

And then ideally, the goal would be to present clear-cut cases to some sort of court or even a proper court which will then rule about the lie and apply the statutory penalties.

The clear-cut cases would have proven facts as a basis, leaving no room for interpretation and the court would then rule on that basis.

Why would you assume that there are others that have a clear idea on on how to decide what is true and what is not, if you have no clear idea? 

 

Do you think courts and fact checkers are unbiased? 

[tgw]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

Why would you assume that there are others that have a clear idea on on how to decide what is true and what is not, if you have no clear idea? 

 

Do you think courts and fact checkers are unbiased? 

 

"how to decide what is true and what not"

research provides us with reliable facts.

when reliable facts tell another story then the claim that was made is a lie.

 

the goal is not to reach a conclusive end for each and every claim made, nor to control politics or media.
the goal is to prosecute enough lies so that the deterrence effect is enough to keep media and politics for the most part honest.

 

bias is the reason why I concentrate on clear-cut cases leaving no room for interpretation.

bias can't apply there.