Do you think we could discourage illegal immigration by buying TV ads in the countries where the migrants are coming from that scare them into not coming to the US?

Ads like "you have a 50% chance of dying in the desert if you come" or "your daughters will be raped in Joe Biden's detention camps". Ads that basically point out all the negatives of coming to the US and all of the dangers.

Do you think that the ads would be expensive? Would they be effective? Would the foreign TV networks air them? We would need someone to make the ads and narrate them in Spanish. Not sure what medium is most prevalent in those countries, whether it is Internet, TV or radio, but what if we drove home the point that coming to the US is dangerous and not worth the risk.

Today I watched an interesting video of a frog eating a spider. The spider was just as big, if not bigger than the frog. Do you know how that frog killed the spider?

It was very clever. Instead of trying to eat the spider whole, it systematically attacked each of the spider's legs, one at a time until the spider could not move. Then the frog ate the spider whole.

We must be the frog.

The left is the spider. The spider has many legs.

• The Education System
• Media
• Big Tech
• Woke Culture
• Systemic Voter Fraud

Just to name a few. In order to win, we have to fight against each of these legs one at a time, until the spider has no legs to stand on. If we can win against one or two of these, the spider will begin to struggle.

We need to fight against public education and resist woke education in the classroom. We need to get off big tech and use alternative services like Gab. We need to have our own culture and make our own movies and TV shows that show the positives of our values.

Our fight will be hard, but seeing the frog eat the spider made me realize this is how we win.

Here is the video, we must be the frog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxH0dCblrws

I've been wondering, what if we set up a housing community on an empty tract of land, then installed an HOA that is set up to ensure everyone in the community is loyal to the principles of the Constitution so that it is a community of only patriots.

Then, once we're all settled in, we simply declare ourselves an autonomous zone, just like CHAZ. CHAZ was an occupation, but if you get a group of property owners together who already own the community and all property and then simply refuse to let outsiders of any type in, what could the government do?

They could invade, but it would be hard for them to justify to normies a reason to basically occupy a community of people who own all of the property and just want to be left alone. I suspect the government might do a blockade-like action, basically preventing anyone from coming in or out. So maybe we would need a whole town, complete with water, sewage treatment and electricity generation.

Just a thought.

I propose a new amendment to the Constitution that allows the states to recall the President and force a new election. Here's what I propose:

Upon the request of the state legislatures of at least 2/3rds of the states, or upon the request of the Governor of 3/4ths of the states, the President of the United States can be recalled and a new election can be held.

Upon the states or governors transmitting their desire to recall to Congress, preparation for a new Presidential Election shall immediately begin. The election must be held within 120 days of the last state's transmission of their desire to recall having been sent.

Any person who was previously on the Presidential ballot in any of the last three election cycles is automatically eligible to run for President. Furthermore, to facilitate a quick election, any person who meets the requirements to be President of Article 2 of the Constitution may also run, provided that they can collect the lesser of 500,000 or 10% of their state's registered voter signatures within 45 days of the announcement of the new election, as well as provide a $1 Million dollar bond as an entry fee, which will immediately be returned to the candidate and may be used for campaign financing.

I think that with all of the crazy crap Biden has pulled off in just the last few days, this may actually have a chance of passing. To kick this process off, 2/3rds of Congress or 2/3rds of state legislatures need to sign on to start discussions. With Biden sending Congress home, they may not be so happy with him and may see this as a way to gain more power.

I think if we play our cards right we can use this against both sides. Our side likes this because we can get Biden out. We can tell the Dems that this Amendment would be for ensuring that if there was ever another President like Trump, there would be another way to remove him from office.

The beauty of this is that I think the bar this sets is just high enough that you won't see one party able to unilaterally take control and always force a new election, but the bar is low enough that if you have some across-the-aisle cooperation between states, you can get rid of a bad President.

Thoughts? Can we push this and make this a reality?

I just finished watching the full Georgia / Trump call and Georgia looks really guilty. For reference, here is the full call: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/audio-trumps-full-jan-2-call-with-ga-secretary-of-state/2021/01/03/3f9426f4-7937-4718-8a8e-9d6052001991_video.html

Basically, when Trump says "we just need to find 11,000 votes" he means that they just need to close the gap to get the victory. Trump mentioned many avenues of fraud: out of state voters, dead voters, duplicate voters, water main break / suitcase ballots, etc and his whole point is that not all of those need to be proven, just one to close the gap of the 11,000 or so votes he is down and he has victory. Trump said he thinks they won the state by 400k or 500k votes but they just need to close the gap so Trump wins by one vote as it doesn't matter if he wins by 1 vote or 500k votes.

What was telling though was how Georgia kept making claims but could not back anything up. Georgia says that they investigates and found that only 2 dead people voted, but Trump's team found some 5,000 dead voters. Trump's team says that they would like to cross-reference their data with the data Georgia has, as they have said there may be some people they are matching on by name and DOB that are duplicates (eg: John Smith born in 1980 shows up as dead, but there may be another John Smith born in 1980 that is alive that is the real voter) but they can't do that without access to the data that only Georgia has.

Time and again Trump and his team make a claim on the call and Georgia says it's been debunked, but when Trump's team asks to see the data they say it's protected and they can't give Trump's team access to the data. Trump just has to take Georgia's word for it.

At the end of the call, Trump's team basically says, let's just focus on one of these fraudulent avenues. Let's sit down and compare the data we have with the data you have. This avenue of fraud has some 24,000 votes in question, which is more than enough to swing the state to Trump. Trump's team seemed to imply that if they sat down and viewed the data and it showed nothing they might let the rest go, but if their suspicions are correct then Trump wins. It sounded like they wanted to go all in on these 24,000 votes.

Georgia basically had some non-committal response like "we'll have our lawyers contact your lawyers" etc which makes me think that isn't going to happen.

Bottom line, Georgia looked really guilty in that call. Georgia kept saying Trump's data was inaccurate, but when asked to produce their data said no, it's protected. Basically, just trust us.

Hoping Trump has something up his sleeve he can do if Georgia doesn't give Trump access to their data.

Joe Biden was talking with his priest one day after service, when the fire alarm went off. The two begin to leave the building when Joe says "The Daycare, what about the children?!".

The priest, wanting to save his own ass, says, "fuck the children".

Joe says, "Do you think we'll have time?"

Hi Everyone,

Lately I've seen a lot of posts of people saying Trump should repeal Section 230. I believe this is a TERRIBLE idea, and will actually be a huge gift to the left, while also killing any possible chance of a competitor to Twitter and Facebook ever emerging.

What is Section 230?

Section 230 is a law that basically says two things:

1. No internet service provider who acts as a platform will be treated as the speaker of any information posted by its users AND
2. These platforms may moderate content to remove obscene, illegal and objectionable content from their platforms and not be held liable for these moderation efforts.

Section 230 came about partly because of two lawsuits. There were two internet forums and two cases where someone on those forums slandered another person.

The first forum did not have any sort of moderation and allowed all content. The second forum did have moderation where certain objectionable content was removed. The first forum was found to be not liable because they did not moderate their content, whereas the second forum, because they had moderation of objectionable content (eg: swears, sexually explicit or illegal content) was liable because the courts found that this moderation made them responsible for the content.

Congress saw this and realized that there needed to be a way to allow some moderation on platforms without the platform being liable, because otherwise these platforms would just allow all content, even the worst content imaginable, because that was the only way they could escape liability. Thus, section 230 was born.

Publisher vs Platform

Section 230 gives immunity to platforms, which means that the service acts as a public forum, as opposed to a publisher, which is like a newspaper, where there is editorial control over the content.

Platforms can exercise limited moderation to remove certain types of content, including the vaguely termed objectionable content. This is where Section 230 starts to have issues.

Objectionable was never clearly defined in the law, so platforms use this as an excuse to remove content they don't agree with. Rather than repealing Section 230, what needs to be done is to clearly define what is meant by objectionable content and what is not considered objectionable. For instance, the law could be clarified to require providers like Twitter and Facebook to list in their Terms of Service specifically what objectionable content is, and it could also allow users to sue platforms if they believe that their content was removed and does not clearly fall under the umbrella of objectionable.

Why Section 230 is very important to new social media companies

Suppose you had two users on a social media site, Donald and Joe. Donald says that Joe is a "senile old racist pedophile". Joe doesn't like this, so he sues Donald for slander. However Joe also sues the social media company because they allowed Donald's supposedly slanderous speech. Section 230 basically says that as long as the social media company is a platform, Joe can't sue the social media company for Donald's speech.

This is important for the young social media upstarts, as Section 230 allows them to allow users to speak without being worried about being sued every time one user pisses another off. If Section 230 were to go away, censorship would get worse, not better. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook would remove any users they deem to be potentially libelous, and only allow those that they believe will not cause them any legal trouble. More importantly, upstarts like Parler could not exist as they would be bankrupt the first time one user said something bad about another on the platform.

So what can be done

There are a few things:

1. Congress can clarify Section 230 to clear up what "objectionable" means and also interduce methods by which users can challenge tagging of their content as "objectionable" in court. The law should be amended so that if a class of users in a class action can provide evidence of bias against a particular viewpoint that is not specifically banned in the provider's terms of service, they can bring legal action against the platform.

2. Donald Trump could potentially strip a different type of liability away from these providers.

Section 230 covers most, but not all, of the types of liability that protects social media providers. Section 230 does NOT cover copyright, which instead falls under the purview of the US Copyright Office. Unlike Section 230 protections, in order to receive protection against copyright suits for content companies must REGISTER with the copyright office to receive this protection.

Since the purpose of copyright is "to promote the progress of useful arts and science by protecting the exclusive right of authors and inventors to benefit from their works of authorship", I would argue that Trump could issue an executive order that says that any service found to not be promoting the progress of useful arts and science due to a demonstrable bias against one or more groups of society, should not have their DMCA copyright liability protection renewed.

If companies lost their DMCA liability protections, it could be as detrimental to them as losing their Section 230 liability protections. Furthermore, it is more likely that the US Copyright Office can be targeted by an executive order, since it is a government office, rather than Section 230, which is a standalone law.

3. Users who are harmed on platforms that show "fact check" notices can start suing these platforms directly.

I would argue that the repeated editorialization and fact checking on Facebook and Twitter makes them publishers and not platforms. Furthermore, I would argue that these actions make them publishers not just on the posts where they put these notices, but on ALL posts on their services. These services can't be a platform for some posts but a publisher for others, it's instead all or nothing.

So, users of these services should start to sue these services for harms suffered, arguing that their actions have made them a publisher. So, users who are harassed on Twitter, or threatened, or slandered, etc, should start to sue Twitter arguing that while typically Section 230 would prevent such a suit, Twitter's repeated editorializing of content has made them a publisher, not just for some posts, but all posts.

All it would take would be for one or two suits to stick where people harassed on Twitter successfully argue that they can sue Twitter because it is no longer a publisher for Twitter to be forced to stop editorializing content and blocking content they do not agree with. Once the precedent is set, it would open the floodgates for others to sue Twitter if they keep acting as a publisher.

I get that Trump is mad about social media companies. I am too. But repealing Section 230 would do way more harm than good. Instead, the law needs to be reformed. I hope that reform, not repeal is Trump's ultimate goal, as repeal will doom all but the largest social media services and will silence all but the most well behaved users on these services.

I just saw a post on here where several people said they were having problems with Twitter video playback. Some people said it was working fine, others said they were having issues.

I too have had weird Twitter video issues that are intermittent. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, or it will load but then stop or stutter.

This makes me wonder if what I like to call "shadowbuffering" exists. Imagine there's a video that Twitter or Youtube doesn't like. They want to stop the spread of it, but for whatever reason can't or don't want to censor the post outright. They could introduce an artificial lag into the video, causing it to buffer.

These companies already do shadowbans, why couldn't they introduce an artificial buffer delay to make it where you get frustrated and just move on to the next piece of content?

I have no proof that this is a real thing, but weird intermittent video issues make me wonder if this is yet another censorship tactic that social media companies employ.

With the news that Conservative Treehouse is being deplatformed, I wanted to ask if anyone had a list of conservative-friendly webhosts, domain registrars, etc that will not bow to pressure to deplatform us if we attempt to build a site to get our message out there. If we don't have a list, we should compile one.

I'm wondering if the best options may even be offshore providers.

Trump should immediately sign an Executive Order that authorizes the payment of up to $1 Million plus immunity to anyone providing information that leads to the arrest and conviction of anyone who has committed voter fraud or election tampering.

Dangle a big enough carrot out there and someone is bound to flip.

I would like to see the democrats try and spin this one, they would have to come out and say they are for voter fraud. Since the $$$ would only be on conviction it would mean anything thrown out there would need to stick, as you know if the money was awarded only on the information itself the dems would say he's trying to drum up fake claims of fraud. A lot harder to claim that if the reward is only on conviction.

First post here, I've been lurking a looong time but finally decided to join. I wanted to post my observations of voting early in what I would call a purple area of a state that always seems to go blue.

Voting line was minimal, went at around 10:00 AM on a Saturday. All I had to do was provide my name, address and signature to vote, no ID required. I don't know if they matched the signature or not, but my signature at this point is just a scribble so hoping my vote gets counted.

What shocked me is that for many positions the Republicans didn't even put up a candidate! I had planned to vote straight R but like HALF of the positions for like state senate and other things didn't even have a Republican! It was like giving the dems free votes! There was one senate position where my choice was a democrat or a Libertarian, so I gave my vote to the Libertarian.

Also, at the polling place they had about 50 signs for various candidates outside, including a huge sign for Sniffy Joe. Then they had one teeny, tiny Trump sign way in the back where you couldn't see it from the road. That made me so mad.

But voting for Trump made me feel so good! I tell you, the energy for Trump that I see here and on Youtube makes me so hopeful that even my state which always goes blue may, just may, flip red this time around.