2031
Comments (38)
sorted by:
67
Pomilui 67 points ago +67 / -0

Looters are specifically mentioned in the tweet. I don't see the word "protesters" anywhere. Interesting...

29
deleted 29 points ago +29 / -0
6
H_Guderian 6 points ago +6 / -0

They refuse to separate the two. Mao said terrorists are the fish and the civilians are the sea they swim in. Same principle.

43
Staatssicherheit 43 points ago +43 / -0

More evidence for lawsuits against twitter for civil rights violations.

42
deleted 42 points ago +42 / -0
18
Crimson_Identity 18 points ago +18 / -0

I would love to get a check for from Twitter.

Let's just make it enough it puts them out of business. Is 2 dollars for every American enough?

3
Shermoo 3 points ago +3 / -0

Make it $5, I’m headed to Wendy’s.

10
Workhorse101 10 points ago +11 / -1

You can't sue a publisher because they banned you from commenting.

Removing their Protection means you can sue them or threaten to sue them if they allow people to post information that isn't true and do not remove the information.

That's what James O'Keefe does but it still doesn't stop the papers he sues spewing out propoganda every day.

8
Isolated_Patriot 8 points ago +8 / -0

I would have been fine with this yesterday. After today, they engaged in an act of open defiance of the president during a national emergency. Burn their servers to the ground.

3
I_Love_45-70_Gov 3 points ago +3 / -0

They are incredibly stupid to challenge him on this. President Trump simply does not lose.

3
Shermoo 3 points ago +3 / -0

They still don’t understand. HE IS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE UNIVERSE. Yeah sure you’ll win.

2
spicyfries 2 points ago +2 / -0

The man terminated two political dynasties BEFORE becoming president. He not only wins, he leaves his opponents broken!

@jack must have the memory of a goldfish.

1
CakeStryder 1 point ago +1 / -0

501 of the DMCA.

If the user's content is already being scanned then it makes the social media site's safe harbor argument moot. If they can suppress people for ideological reasons and consider it their duty to do so then they can suppress copyright infringement.

23
deleted 23 points ago +23 / -0
20
Anticen 20 points ago +21 / -1

The comments make me lose all faith in humanity and the intelligence of the Human species.

13
Ekgamut 13 points ago +13 / -0

I bet my left testicle that most of them are bots.

11
Two_Scoops__ 11 points ago +11 / -0

they are. Twitter is about as inorganic as it gets

8
kag-2020- 8 points ago +8 / -0

Your first exposure to propaganda?

18
Caferrell 18 points ago +18 / -0

Take Jack to court!

14
MuadDon 14 points ago +15 / -1

If you read it slowly without TDS or other pre-conceived notions, he's saying that looting is violent and criminal behavior that will escalate into shooting, NOT that the military will shoot looters. I don't know if he did that on purpose or not but it was a perfect trap for Twitter and they rushed to jump on it.

6
Botz15_1776 6 points ago +7 / -1

I thought the exact same thing. Trump again playing 4D chess.

12
_Cabal_ 12 points ago +12 / -0

Violence is glorious when it is just.

Stop playing into their rhetorical traps. Defensive violence should be glorified.

10
zettapede 10 points ago +10 / -0

Agreed. This bullshit rhetoric that "violence never solves anything" is harmful to society. Violence is what keeps our society safe. Justly-enacted violence by police, military, and good men who happen to be in the wrong place at the right time.

We must teach our children that good things are worth fighting for.

Otherwise you get what's going on in Minnesota right now.

3
utfanx2 3 points ago +3 / -0

Watching the video, I was just as apalled by the bystanders who were witnessing an active murder, and did nothing. They were too scared of authority, so they let him die. The only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

7
definitelyright 7 points ago +7 / -0

It isn't hard to understand that GEOTUS was saying that looting brings violence with it. This is fact - either someone will shoot to take possession of something, or someone will shoot to defend their homes/business/etc. Things must not be allowed to get to that, though I'm sure it already has.

7
Ishmiester 7 points ago +7 / -0

Time to start the lawsuits. If twitter is a publisher then BOMBS AWAAAAAAY

7
zettapede 7 points ago +7 / -0

Prepare your anus, Jacky-boy!

6
GhostOfMyFormerSelf 6 points ago +6 / -0

Very. Stable. Genius.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
anon572759 2 points ago +2 / -0

I know I'm getting hard watching Jack tie the rope My Favorite President is feeding him.

4
commodore_1571 4 points ago +4 / -0

Trump handled this perfectly.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
AnastasiusFoct 3 points ago +3 / -0

The Whitehouse strategy team led Twitter right into this huge mistake, a perfect setup and Twitter took the bait.

The bias and agenda is becoming so visibly overt now that the amount of mental gymnastics MSM defenders need to do is off the charts

Now as people start to push the "looting/shooting" angle the average viewer is beginning to smell the rank stench of moral corruption coming from the "trusted media"

As things get closer to the election, the bad actors will get more desperate as they get boxed into the corner and they will inevitably hit a bullseye of mistakes, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate

2
the-new-style 2 points ago +3 / -1

The trap. You walked right in.

The EO says they've been working on this since May 2019. And they think he's doing all this on impulse !

2
e_pluribus_unum9 2 points ago +2 / -0

We ALL know what POTUS meant. Anyone with common sense and rationale does. Of course the Leftist subverts dumbdown the statement to spin it in a negative narrative. The insidious part is that these subversives are not dumb at all. They know exactly what they're doing.

1
righttowolfarms 1 point ago +1 / -0

Interesting how this is a censorable offense, but not Kathy Griffin holding a severed Trump head isn’t.

1
CakeStryder 1 point ago +1 / -0

501 of the DMCA.

If the user's content is already being scanned then it makes the social media site's safe harbor argument moot. If they can suppress people for ideological reasons and consider it their duty to do so then they can suppress copyright infringement.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0