• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Twitter accused of suppressing DNC Wikileaks story

Harry Guerrilla said:
If they make claims of neutrality, then it's pretty bad stuff.
Plus it's preventing all the info from the email hacks getting out.
Some damning stuff in there.
Click to expand...

Do they make claims of neutrality? I don't use Twitter, i think it's ****ing stupid and for the most part full of excessively vapid content.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The thing that bothers me the most about your rhetoric is that you can't even comprehend why Bernie supporters would be upset or surprised. America was beaten over the head every single day of Bernie's campaign with things like "He can never win, Hillary is inevitable" and "But ALL the super delegates already picked Hillary, he should quit". You're essentially saying that the tremendous institutional advantage Clinton had and the full backing of the DNC meant absolutely nothing. Even with all of this nonsense it was a very, very close race, and that doesn't even consider how many people were blocked from voting for not registering as a Democrat as far as 6 months in advance or the number of votes and voters that were simply purged.
Click to expand...
You mean the Dems not only undermined the Independent interloper but they actually prevented Independents from voting in the Democratic primaries? OMG. That's horrible. Call the FBI.

Are you serious? THe DNC was smart enough to see a Trump brewing in their primary, and they stopped it. Smart of them, if you ask me.

Feel free to sit there smug because the corruption worked in your favor this time, but as an American you should be alarmed that it's happening at all. If this had been a fair election from the beginning I might, MIGHT have voted for Hillary. After all the **** that's happened the past 6 months, this coming out, and her VP pick, there is absolutely no chance I'll be doing that and she's going to lose a LOT of Sanders voters. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be there to blame it all on Sanders voters when/if she loses to Trump, which is becoming more and more of a possibility.
Click to expand...
It's not corrupt to block an Independent from taking over your Party. Sheesh. It may have been deceitful to not come out and admit it however, but that is a far cry from "corrupt."

It would maybe be OK that they did this if we had a vibrant multi-party system, but we don't. We have two and only two choices, and if those two private organizations are selecting the candidates for us our votes mean absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

They did not want an Independent ruining their Party like Trump did to the GOP. I think that was smart politics.
 
Ikari said:
Do they make claims of neutrality? I don't use Twitter, i think it's ****ing stupid and for the most part full of excessively vapid content.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain I saw Dorsey say they're nuetral before.
I don't use it and don't have an account but a lot of people do.

It's a good way to spread information about important topics like this scandal.
 
Ikari said:
Do they make claims of neutrality? I don't use Twitter, i think it's ****ing stupid and for the most part full of excessively vapid content.
Click to expand...

Twitter is a publicly traded company. It's bad business not to be neutral.
 
apdst said:
Twitter is a publicly traded company. It's bad business not to be neutral.
Click to expand...

Very few companies are "neutral". Or are you saying all the media conglomerates are neutral?
 
Redress said:
Very few companies are "neutral". Or are you saying all the media conglomerates are neutral?
Click to expand...

Very few companies are overtly partisan. Remember what happened to Facebook's stock a few months ago? That price drop forces Zuckerburg to nip the partisanship/perceived partisanship in the bud.
 
calamity said:
You mean the Dems not only undermined the Independent interloper but they actually prevented Independents from voting in the Democratic primaries? OMG. That's horrible. Call the FBI.

Are you serious? THe DNC was smart enough to see a Trump brewing in their primary, and they stopped it. Smart of them, if you ask me.


It's not corrupt to block an Independent from taking over your Party. Sheesh. It may have been deceitful to not come out and admit it however, but that is a far cry from "corrupt."

They did not want an Independent ruining their Party like Trump did to the GOP. I think that was smart politics.
Click to expand...

Yeah, see, this is why you have no problem with it. You're one of the people who will blindly support whoever the democratic nominee is every election no matter what. If we have a system where the two parties in power prevent the other parties from competing AND get to pick the nominee, it's not a democracy and our votes don't matter. Our election system is designed around having two and only two parties. We either need a multiparty system or public control of the two parties. Having two private organizations choose our presidents for us is ridiculous and undemocratic.
 
calamity said:
You mean the Dems not only undermined the Independent interloper but they actually prevented Independents from voting in the Democratic primaries? OMG. That's horrible. Call the FBI.

Are you serious? THe DNC was smart enough to see a Trump brewing in their primary, and they stopped it. Smart of them, if you ask me.


It's not corrupt to block an Independent from taking over your Party. Sheesh. It may have been deceitful to not come out and admit it however, but that is a far cry from "corrupt."



They did not want an Independent ruining their Party like Trump did to the GOP. I think that was smart politics.
Click to expand...

The irony is that Trump may have won in either party. Hillary has proven that she is a lousy candidate. In a low voter environment such as a primary not hard to believe Trump, with a slightly different message could have beaten her.
 
Ugh.

Like Facebook, Twitter doesn't hire journalist and produce news items. It's not a news organization claiming to be "fair and balanced" (and funny enough, the one that does is anything but).





What will the next conspiracy to victimize conservatives be? Fancy Feast uses excessively progressive kitty pictures on its labels? The beef container has a red label, and we all know what that means?
 
apdst said:
Very few companies are overtly partisan. Remember what happened to Facebook's stock a few months ago? That price drop forces Zuckerburg to nip the partisanship/perceived partisanship in the bud.
Click to expand...

Very few companies are not partisan. Just because FOX news says they are fair and balanced does not make it so. The NBA just this week picked a side on a political issue. And so on, and so forth.

And I am not finding that Facebook stock crash...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Why is it "faux outrage" where is my "outrage" and why is it "faux?"
They're hurting themselves, they caught got with their pants down and it's just day one of the wikileaks release.



I'd love to see and post those as well, but what I do have from them?
Nothing right now.
Click to expand...

HG, you know the formula for Pete.

If it's news that's negative to the left, it's Right Wing Noise Machine Faux Outrage
It it's news that's positive for the left, it's serious, hard hitting journalism that we need to heed.
 
Renae said:
HG, you know the formula for Pete.

If it's news that's negative to the left, it's Right Wing Noise Machine Faux Outrage
It it's news that's positive for the left, it's serious, hard hitting journalism that we need to heed.
Click to expand...

Pete doesn't have much to stand on.
Bernie guys are much more pissed about this than others.

This should be the story of MSM right now, it's more than just twitter and Bernie stuff.
 
Redress said:
So you are saying facebook lost a bunch of users over a scandal almost no one heard of involving Israel and Palestine? Right....
Click to expand...

I've proven that Facebook's stock decrease coincides with its censorship. The stock dropped because of a drop in traffic. The drop in traffic is a result of Facebook's censorship.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Really, the DNC email dump seems like a non-story to me. And this seems like a non-story of a non-story.
Click to expand...

If you think alleged collusion with the DNC and the media, the intentional lack of neutrality in the DNC and things like that aren't important.
That's part of it.
 
apdst said:
I've proven that Facebook's stock decrease coincides with its censorship. The stock dropped because of a drop in traffic. The drop in traffic is a result of Facebook's censorship.
Click to expand...

Where did you prove this? Facebook stock has nothing to do with censorship. Facebook stock doesn't even have anything to do with user-base! Otherwise the company wouldn't be worth close to $350 Billion
 
PeteEU said:
private company, it is their right to do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

It is their right.

And it's their users rights to voice their complaints or disapproval of such things. Am I crazy and someone was suggesting there should be legal or governmental action taken against Twitter, because if so, what does their "rights" have to do with anything being discussed in the OP?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you think alleged collusion with the DNC and the media, the intentional lack of neutrality in the DNC and things like that aren't important.
That's part of it.
Click to expand...

Where is this alleged collusion?

The story seems to me that the DNC routinely talks to the media (True but not orewellian). Twitter, for some reason wants to suppress this even though they are the media. Are you saying that twitter is the arm of the DNC that is what we really should be worried about and not the media??? This story makes absolutely no sense then. Why would Twitter want to suppress a story that has already gotten out about collusion? Twitter doesn't go around saying what can we do to make ourselves look even worse. They are already having trouble as a company as it is. There is no logical reason for twitter to suppress this story.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Where is this alleged collusion?

The story seems to me that the DNC routinely talks to the media (True but not orewellian). Twitter, for some reason wants to suppress this even though they are the media. Are you saying that twitter is the arm of the DNC that is what we really should be worried about and not the media??? This story makes absolutely no sense then. Why would Twitter want to suppress a story that has already gotten out about collusion? Twitter doesn't go around saying what can we do to make ourselves look even worse. They are already having trouble as a company as it is. There is no logical reason for twitter to suppress this story.
Click to expand...

A link to all that's been found so far.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...0-000-hacked-dnc-emails-7.html#post1066115844
 
WCH said:
So is the NYtimes, CNN, NBC, CBS, ETC. Is it OK for them?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Union of Soviet Socialist Networks. Twitter was easy to annex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom