Messages

1

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: June 07, 2022, 06:29:48 PM »

The private army thing has been roundly explored in many good sci-fi books as well.

Heinlein, I will fear no evil:

My hotel was only five minutes from the medical center." "I must now admit to having taken another liberty, Doctor. Your luggage was packed, your hotel bill has been paid, and all your things were moved to my guest room." "My word. Why?" "Better security." "That hotel seemed secure to me. Armed guards on every door, more armed men operating the lifts-I could not get in or out without showing my I.D. at least thrice. Reminded me of the army. Hadn't realized what an armed camp the States are. Isn't it rather a nuisance?" "Yes. But one grows used to it. Your hotel is safe enough, physically. But the press are onto us now and they can get inside. And so can the police." Boyle looked troubled but not panicky.

The number of licensed private police in the United States reached triple the number of 'public peace officers. Miss Joan née Johann Smith received over two thousand proposals of marriage, more than that number of less formal proposals, one hundred eighty-seven death threats, an undisclosed number of extortion notes, and four bombs-not any of which she received in person as they were diverted to Mercury Private Courier Service under procedures set up years earlier.

Must have been ten years since I last read this one, if not more, but it seemed to have mostly aged well. Total reliance on private security forces for offense and defense are a staple of the story. It doesn't hurt that it indicates the kind of power that a billionaire type could wield in such a dystopian world. They essentially become above the law, because they have sufficient firepower to be largely immune to the state's efforts to curtail them.

Fiction doesn't indicate anything.  It's merely what one person imagines the kind of power a billionaire could wield in such world.

2

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: June 01, 2022, 12:56:06 PM »

Who appointed the Judges?  I agree it might not be completely the Chicago DA's issue. Though if they aren't motivated to make the cases stick, it becomes easy for a Judge to dismiss.

3

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: June 01, 2022, 12:39:40 PM »

Or it could be a Judge with other motivations.

4

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: June 01, 2022, 11:43:16 AM »

This article is a bit dated but I think it clearly shows that Chicago is frequently choosing not to prosecute these types of crimes.

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousands-felony-gun-cases-are-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/

From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge.

5

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: June 01, 2022, 11:09:02 AM »

No argument here.  Prosecute them.

While we're at it can we make Chicago prosecute things like illegal possession of a firearm and illegal firearm sales? 

6

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: May 31, 2022, 04:41:24 PM »

I'm all for it.  How would that stop school shootings?
Also, can we enforce the gun laws we already have please?

7

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: May 31, 2022, 01:38:53 PM »

What's the source of your data? 
What is the difference between a Homicide and a death related to a school shooting?
How many of the homicides were attributed to an "Assault Weapon"?
Why did you stop at 2010?

8

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: May 31, 2022, 01:24:17 PM »

Let me introduce you to the Remington Model 8.

http://thegreatmodel8.remingtonsociety.com/?page_id=8

9

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: May 31, 2022, 12:23:19 PM »

Really, AR-15 has been around for 100 years?  They had them back in the 1920's?  Can you provide a source of that?

You better re-read my post.  Because I didnt say the AR 15 had been around 100 years.

10

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: May 31, 2022, 12:14:32 PM »

We didn't always have this problem with school shootings. Semi automatic weapons like the AR 15 have been available to civilians for over 100 years.  The weapons haven't changed that much.

11

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

« on: May 27, 2022, 04:33:58 PM »

Uncle Joe gave the commencement speech at my Alma Mater today. 

“I was told the Class of ’72 is here. I was appointed to the academy in 1965 by a senator who I was running against in 1972 — never planned it that way. I wasn’t old enough to be sworn in. I was only 29 years old when I was running,
He was a fine man. His name is J. Caleb Boggs, I didn’t come to the academy because I wanted to be a football star. And you had a guy named [Roger] Staubach and [Joe] Bellino here. So I went to Delaware.”

Biden graduated from University of Delaware in 1965 so there is no way he was appointed to USNA in '65. 

Bellino was class of '61 and Staubach was '65 and they didn't overlap.

Given the strict honor code Midshipmen hold themselves to it's infuriating to see him being so dishonest.

12

General Comments / Re: The Great Replacement?

« on: May 16, 2022, 02:41:19 PM »

Lloyd,
No comment on the shooters reasons for the shooting?

I have no idea what his reasons were.  I assume the guy is a racist *censored*. I also assume he is crazy. I would like to read what he posted online before the shooting but apparently, the ministry of truth doesn't think I should be able to.  I would also like to know what happened the last time he made threats but for some reason the feds wont release that information.

13

General Comments / Re: The Great Replacement?

« on: May 16, 2022, 02:05:04 PM »

Meanwhile, 33 people shot in Chicago this weekend 5 fatally.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-weekend-violence-crime-police/11855997/

Nothing on the national news about that.

Sounds like another vote for “tax arms sales and body armor for everyone!”

More like a vote for "start enforcing the gun laws that are on the books".

So you support enabling the ATF to more efficiently track guns and gun sales so they can more easily identify straw purchasers and the gun dealers they buy from?

No, I don't support that.  I support charging criminals found with illegal guns with felonies and prosecuting them to the full extent of the law.  Rather than pleading them out to misdemeanors and releasing them back into the street.

14

General Comments / Re: The Great Replacement?

« on: May 16, 2022, 02:01:22 PM »

Well  I bet Tucker Carlson is pleased.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/great-replacement-theory-try-language-090107600.html

Almost nothing from Fox News on this tragedy. Maybe because it was just 10+ black people gunned down by a young white Christian male.  Or maybe their employees support of the Great Replacement theory is coming back to haunt them.

Lets listen for the usual suspects skittering around trying to say why this was not all that bad and it was just a single deranged person and not a larger movement that the Right has been pushing for a few years now.  Or how this guy is actually a deep plant left wing false flag operative funded by Bill Gates and George Soros.

I guess you think almost nothing is a above the fold 1/4 page placement on the frontpage.

Right now there are plenty of pieces about the shooting.  But the oldest one I could find was from 24 hours ago (as of 10:30 AM, PST, Monday 5-15-22), which is about 17 hours after the shooting.  So it looks like it took Fox News (the network, not any of the local affiliates) more than half a day to notice the attack.

Can you find a story on the Fox News network site that is earlier?

Oh, here's one from 3:43 PM May 14th. About an hour after it happened.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220514213350/https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-police-mass-shooting-buffalo-grocery-store

You libtards have to stop with the disinformation.

15

General Comments / Re: The Great Replacement?

« on: May 16, 2022, 01:57:28 PM »

Meanwhile, 33 people shot in Chicago this weekend 5 fatally.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-weekend-violence-crime-police/11855997/

Nothing on the national news about that.

Sounds like another vote for “tax arms sales and body armor for everyone!”

More like a vote for "start enforcing the gun laws that are on the books".

16

General Comments / Re: The Great Replacement?

« on: May 16, 2022, 01:47:32 PM »

Have you tried doing that analysis on CNN?

17

General Comments / Re: The Great Replacement?

« on: May 16, 2022, 01:00:01 PM »

Meanwhile, 33 people shot in Chicago this weekend 5 fatally.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-weekend-violence-crime-police/11855997/

Nothing on the national news about that.

18

General Comments / Re: The Great Replacement?

« on: May 16, 2022, 12:31:17 PM »

Well  I bet Tucker Carlson is pleased.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/great-replacement-theory-try-language-090107600.html

Almost nothing from Fox News on this tragedy. Maybe because it was just 10+ black people gunned down by a young white Christian male.  Or maybe their employees support of the Great Replacement theory is coming back to haunt them.

Lets listen for the usual suspects skittering around trying to say why this was not all that bad and it was just a single deranged person and not a larger movement that the Right has been pushing for a few years now.  Or how this guy is actually a deep plant left wing false flag operative funded by Bill Gates and George Soros.

I guess you think almost nothing is a above the fold 1/4 page placement on the frontpage.

19

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: May 05, 2022, 01:48:03 PM »

I don't see how a judge can reasonably be expected to claim, in advance, how they will consider or rule on something not yet on the table in front of them. It would almost be impeachable to make promises about how they'll do their job, since IMO that implies they will apply partisan principles going in rather than assessing the facts when they are presented in the future.

Judges should be able to comment on if a past case was decided properly or unconstitutionally. I agree they shouldn't opine about hypothetical cases. But making a statement on a past decision they have had time to review isn't a crazy question. I understand why its politically unacceptable for them to answer such questions. But it should be within the scope of their legal acumen to critique past decisions they have all the documentation, facts, and legal reasoning on.

If only a conformation hearing was really a conformation hearing such well thought out questions about the law would be the only type of questions asked.

In your world the only things that matter about a Judge are their race/sex/sexual preference and whether they are willing to invent things you like in the constitution.

20

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: May 05, 2022, 01:45:33 PM »

Alito:

Pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on whether the issue of Roe had been settled by the court, Alito again refused to answer directly.

"It would be wrong for me to say to anybody who might be bringing any case before my court, 'If you bring your case before my court, I'm not even going to listen to you. I've made up my mind on this issue. I'm not going to read your brief. I'm not going to listen to your argument. I'm not going to discuss the issue with my colleagues. Go away — I've made up my mind,' " he said.

"That's the antithesis of what the courts are supposed to do, and if that's what settled means, then I think that's not what judges are supposed to do."

Thomas

During his confirmation hearing in 1991, Thomas refused to state an opinion on abortion or whether Roe had been properly decided. Doing so could compromise his future ability to rule on cases related to Roe, he said. ("I can say on that issue and on those cases I have no agenda. I have an open mind, and I can function strongly as a judge.")

Gorsuch

"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."

Kavanaugh:

"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times."

Additionally, Kavanaugh said it can be appropriate for the court to revisit prior decisions. "I listen to all arguments," he said. "You have an open mind. You get the briefs and arguments. And some arguments are better than others. Precedent is critically important. It is the foundation of our system. But you listen to all arguments."

Barrett

Perhaps the most revealing moment for Barrett came as she was being questioned by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who asked if Barrett considered Roe to be a "super-precedent."

Barrett answered by defining super-precedent as "cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling."

"And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category," she said.

"Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased. But that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn't fall in the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board that no one questions anymore," she added.

Can we drop this bull*censored* about them lying now?

As stated already by yossarian22c.   At the time that whoever called roe "Settled Law" it was.  At no point did any of them promise not to overturn it.

The Roe ruling was bad from the start. Unsupportable by the actual constitution. It was inevitable that it would be overturned eventually.
Dems have had 50 years to codify the Roe findings into actual law and they failed to do so.

Maybe you should be looking inwards for answers rather than calling honorable public servants liers.

21

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: May 05, 2022, 01:17:56 PM »

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings

22

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: May 05, 2022, 12:58:59 PM »

What does it matter what they said anyway?  None of the Dems on the committee voted for Kavanaugh, Gorsuch or Barrett.  They were never going to vote for them no matter what they said.

23

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: May 05, 2022, 10:45:35 AM »

Define what Crunch? Perjury? that is lying under oath. Like saying Roe V Wade is the law of the land and then over turning that law at the first chance.

I'm sure you can provide quotes where one of the recently appointed Justices made false statements under oath.  Right?

24

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: May 04, 2022, 12:45:17 PM »

Granted, the Right finds the Ninth Amendment highly inconvenient to their project of establishing a theocratic white ethnostate

When you make blanket, untrue, racist accusations like this you invalidate everything else you say and no one can should you seriously.

25

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: May 03, 2022, 04:47:32 PM »

Where in the constitution does the government have the right to regulate abortion? Right reserved for the people. But go on supporting your activist judges who have no respect for precedent.

So you believe the Warren court were activist judges who have no respect for precedent when they reversed Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. Board of Education?

26

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

« on: May 03, 2022, 04:37:28 PM »

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/567795-dont-believe-the-white-house-hype-biden-is-ruining-the-economy-not-fixing/

He makes this statement as GDP declined in the first quarter and inflation is rising out of control.  Sounds like you are just as out of touch as he is.

27

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: May 03, 2022, 03:21:08 PM »

Biden tries to use religion to Justify Roe v. Wade.

“Look, think what Roe says. Roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically concluded — that the right — that the existence of a human life and being is a question. Is it at the moment of conception? Is it six months? Is it six weeks?”

I guess forgot that the Catholic Church, of which he claims to be a devout member, teaches unquestionably that life begins at the moment of conception.

28

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

« on: May 03, 2022, 02:30:22 PM »

"And so, I think it's hard for people to get their arms around the fact that we have the fastest growing economy in 40 years. Wages are actually up, not down. Unemployment's the lowest it's been under, you know, it's just incredibly low, and it's around in the three-point range."  - Joe Biden 4/26/22

29

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: May 03, 2022, 01:13:16 PM »

NH - But abortions will go down because the women who die during an unsafe abortion won't be able to get pregnant again. The important thing is that we'll be able to punish these women for their sins, along with anyone trying to help them.

Not to worry though, the GOP is also helping to ensure that the flow of unwanted pregnancies is unabated.

“Anti–birth control sentiment has been building for over a decade,” says Robin Marty, the author of The New Handbook for Post-Roe America. “The groundwork was laid in 2010, when the Tea Party fought Obamacare by saying IUDs, Plan B, and contraception itself were, as they called it, the biggest expansion of abortion in the nation.”

Marty continued, explaining the groundwork Trump laid. “The reason this is no longer undercover is because of the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby.” The Hobby Lobby verdict allowed employers to refuse to pay for birth control coverage for their employees due to religious reasons. The Trump administration, Marty says, “set the groundwork for the idea that doctors or pharmacists can decline to treat people because of religious beliefs. And now we have a Supreme Court that will rubber-stamp both those decisions.” The irony is that thrice-married adulterer Donald J. Trump, the man who used to be pro-choice, created this atmosphere.

Anti birth control movement

The important thing is to punish the sinner who is having sex for fun rather than procreation as the Lord intended. And that is why people are going to refer to this as theocracy.

You sound like Alex Jones if he was a lefty.

30

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

« on: May 03, 2022, 12:30:08 PM »

“There have not been many senators from Delaware. It’s a small state. As a matter of fact, there’s never been one,” - Joe Biden 5/2/22

31

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: May 03, 2022, 09:22:37 AM »

Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

Sedition, attempt to disrupt an official government proceeding. 

32

General Comments / Re: I'm not a bioligist

« on: April 13, 2022, 02:36:08 PM »

Hardly, but I do believe that government has an obligation to society to protect them from violent criminals. Notice, I did not mention race in my previous post, nor will I in this one.

Lets talk a bit more about Smiley Martin.
Six months after he turned 18, Martin was caught in January 2013 with an assault rifle and two fully loaded 25-bullet magazines and was convicted of felony gun charges.

“The rifle had a pistol grip and the capacity to accept a detachable magazine in front of the pistol grip. Inmate Martin was also found to be in possession of two fully loaded twenty-five round magazines for the assault weapon. Inmate Martin admitted to transporting the assault weapon and large capacity magazines to potential buyers. Inmate Martin was sentenced to probation and county jail.”

10 Months later, he pushed aside a Walmart clerk to steal computers worth $2,800. He pled to the robbery and was sentenced to two years in state prison.

In 2016, he was arrested as a parolee at large. And less than six months after that was the assault that sent him back to prison.

He plead no contest to charges of corporal injury and assault likely to cause great bodily injury.  In return for the government dropped the charges of kidnapping and intimidating a witness or victim.

For some reason I cannot fathom, of those charges only Kidnapping is considered a violent felony in California.  This will be important later.

Prior to sentencing Martin sat in jail for 254 days.  The judge awarded him time served credit for twice that. again, I don't get California.

So that would knock his remaining time to serve down to about 8.6 years for release sometime in 2026.

But it gets better!  In California, non-violent felons can earn "a variety of additional post-sentencing credits" which would have prior to 2016 reduced his time served by an additional 20%. But in 2016 California passed Proposition 57 which bumped those credits to 50%!

So that is how a clearly violent criminal only serves 4 years of a 10 year sentence.

The problem is that California failed it's duty to protect society from a violent criminal. Who though he has not been charged for it yet probably participated in a mass shooting resulting multiple murders.

33

General Comments / Re: I'm not a bioligist

« on: April 13, 2022, 11:43:13 AM »

Recently there was a mass shooting in Sacramento, I'm sure you read about it in the news.

One of the suspects was sentenced in 2018 for domestic violence and assault with great bodily injury after he pushed his way into his girlfriend's home, punched her, dragged her from the residence by her hair and whipped her with a belt.

He was released from his 10-year sentence in February of this year after authorities said his sentence was completed due to pre-sentencing credits, even after a parole board rejected his bid for early release last May. In that parole haring prosecutors said the 2017 felony assault against his girlfriend along with convictions for possessing an assault weapon and thefts posed "a significant, unreasonable risk of safety to the community."

Will we lock this guy up forever this time?  My guess is no.

34

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: April 05, 2022, 03:07:38 PM »

I'm sure you can back that up with facts right?

35

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: April 05, 2022, 02:45:00 PM »

I disagree.  I think that law requires all documentation of official business be preserved.  If there is no document, there is nothing to preserve.  If a president has a face to face conversation, is that required to be documented and preserved?

36

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: April 05, 2022, 12:56:16 PM »

Please cite the laws that Trump was breaking  during these 7 1/2 hours by not routing his phone calls through the white house switchboard.  Also please describe why Obama was not violating these same laws by doing the same thing many many times during his presidency.

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts:  any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account.  (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)

So again is it your contention that Trump was not conducting any official business for the 7 and 1/2 hours of the riot on the capital. Or was he using non-official phone and messaging accounts?

Your contention is that a President is required to document all "official business" in a permanent record?

37

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: April 04, 2022, 07:42:44 PM »

Please cite the laws that Trump was breaking  during these 7 1/2 hours by not routing his phone calls through the white house switchboard.  Also please describe why Obama was not violating these same laws by doing the same thing many many times during his presidency.

38

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: April 04, 2022, 02:22:53 PM »

So your defense to him destroying Presidential records is that he took willful action to avoid creating the proper presidential records?

There is testimony from 2020 of some things that you have characterized that way.  How is that relevant to January 6?

So during the riot on the capital the President was unavailable by phone for 7 and 1/2 hours? He was taking a nap and playing a round of golf and the white house didn't give a crap about what was going on a block away?

Did you even read the article?

Yeah, the president purposefully used phones that wouldn't create the proper call log and presidential records. Just trying to understand how you interpret that since you didn't think it was important that he was purposefully avoiding following the presidential records act.

You mean the same way Obama and many presidents before him did?

39

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: April 04, 2022, 01:19:38 PM »

So your defense to him destroying Presidential records is that he took willful action to avoid creating the proper presidential records?

There is testimony from 2020 of some things that you have characterized that way.  How is that relevant to January 6?

So during the riot on the capital the President was unavailable by phone for 7 and 1/2 hours? He was taking a nap and playing a round of golf and the white house didn't give a crap about what was going on a block away?

Did you even read the article?

40

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: April 04, 2022, 12:49:06 PM »

Moving the goalposts now.

What would you consider should be the goal line for the investigation? 
I don't understand the comment - move the goal line?

msquared's original claim was that there were "7-1/2 hours of missing call logs from Jan 6" which was "an egregious violation of Federal Law"

Except thats not true.  So msquared then shifted his claims to "He willfully tried to go around the system set up to keep track of these things"  thereby "moving the goal posts".

So your defense to him destroying Presidential records is that he took willful action to avoid creating the proper presidential records?

There is testimony from 2020 of some things that you have characterized that way.  How is that relevant to January 6?

41

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: April 04, 2022, 10:49:23 AM »

Moving the goalposts now.

From the article you link to

Multiple sources have described the record-keeping during the Trump administration as generally chaotic. Those sources, as well as witnesses who have testified as part of previous congressional investigations related to the former President's conduct described Trump as deeply suspicious of the White House switchboard and detailed various ways he sought to avoid having records of certain phone calls from being kept.
A Senate Intelligence report from 2020 includes witness testimony from former aides saying that Trump regularly used the cellphone of his body man, Keith Schiller, to place calls to Republican operative Roger Stone because he did not want his to advisers to know they were talking.
"Trump hated people knowing who he spoke to, including from the residence at night when they went through the switchboard," one former Trump official told CNN.

He willfully tried to go around the system set up to keep track of these things.  I wonder why he was trying to keep these records from being kept?

42

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission

« on: April 04, 2022, 09:39:42 AM »

Fake news.  I don't blame you for falling for it though.  The MSM dove into it hard.  Surprisingly, it was CNN that debunked it.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/31/politics/mystery-call-gap-trump-jan-6-white-house-phone-logs/index.html

43

General Comments / Re: Cryptocurrencies

« on: February 23, 2022, 12:42:17 PM »

The Seattle CHAZ covered 6 city blocks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest

44

General Comments / Re: Truth Social

« on: February 18, 2022, 02:07:33 PM »

What means?

45

General Comments / Re: Truth Social

« on: February 18, 2022, 01:38:44 PM »

Really?  Please point out some popular leftists that have been banned from social media.

Here's some of the the centrist/right leaning ones that have.
James Woods
Diamond and Silk
Milo Yiannopoulos
Laura Loomer
Steven Crowder
Michelle Malkin
Jack Posobiec
Brandon Straka
Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel
GOP Rep. Mark Meadows
GOP Rep. Jim Jordan
GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz
Millie Weaver aka Mellinial Millie
Independent Video Journalist Ford Fischer

46

General Comments / Re: Truth Social

« on: February 18, 2022, 01:14:03 PM »

It must be nice to be on the side that currently controls what you are allowed to say and not say. You dont have to worry about your misinformation, lies and hate free speech getting you disappeared.

47

General Comments / Re: Truth Social

« on: February 18, 2022, 11:24:27 AM »

I suspect they are doing it specifically to piss off people like you and msquared.  Were you really interested in signing up if there weren't a fee to reserve your username?  Please forgive me if I don't take your fake outrage seriously.

48

General Comments / Re: Truth Social

« on: February 18, 2022, 11:00:55 AM »

Ahh yes.  Fake news.  Signing up for the waiting list is free.  If you want to pre-reserve your username you can make a $1 donation.

49

General Comments / Re: Truth Social

« on: February 18, 2022, 10:56:28 AM »

 Fake news?  I only see it for Pre order. I don't have an iphone so I can't test it.

50

General Comments / Re: The Real Disinformation - spying on the president

« on: February 14, 2022, 04:15:49 PM »

You lefties will do anything to change the subject when you don't like the one brought up.