American Swindle

She's like that shit stain you can't bleach out of your tighty-whities. I hope she runs so we can all be 110% sure she was who we thought she was: a morally bankrupt, narcissistic, war-mongering shit stain that was finally bleached away because this time we used the Clorox brand bleach instead of that dollar store brand bleach.

Listen to the interview, Joe asked him about his thoughts on going to trial. Snowden would be tried in the Virginia court (which I believe he said his Mother serves as a judge,) where everyone gets fucked that blows the whistle. Your bitchass wouldn't come back either, Mr. "Snowden is a whore...but I'm glad he did what he did" GTFOH

Snowden is a hero in my opinion. The IC, what was it?..., can "screw you six ways from Sunday," and it's confirmed in the interview. They can use the Espionage act with impunity while keeping the public in the dark. " patriotism is a constant effort to do good for the people of your country " "If I wanted to be safe, I would still be sitting in Hawaii, making a helluva a lot of money, to spy on all of you." Kudos to this man! NSIAP.

New York times is the beacon of journalistic integrity...lulz.

Let's imagine Hillary Clinton on the board of whatever government agency is regulating Facebook. Do you think she will be an objective administrator and censor the appropriate information? Do you trust her to do so? Were you a defender of Youtube when they banned Alex Jones? What happens when that agency creates burdensome regulations that keep other platforms from competing? You're asking for outright government control of platforms and it's a slippery slope to being abused by an entity that cannot go out of business (much like the monopolistic USPS.) Do you at least support Bernie's defense of Tulsi that she's not a Russian Asset? Can you at least see how Hillary's corporatist cronies are trying to smear Bernie? Are you okay with that? And if you agree that Hillary is the epitome of rot and corruption that Tulsi claims (I agree,) then imagine every government agency being run by her. We have no choice but to pony up our tax dollars to enable such corruption. Lastly, Where does it outline in the Constitution anything that says people can't be billionaires? Do you really believe that their shouldn't be billionaires? I suppose you think Jeff Bezos is too rich, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest that you are a user of Amazon. Do you use Amazon?

I know we are coerced to fund things that are immoral and wasteful, but at least I'm not a cheerleader for more of the same as you are. You've made it clear your moral compass is questionable, you can't even concede that Tulsi took a principled stand for your beloved Bernie Sanders (now a Russian asset.) You see how it works is, the state can conveniently call anyone that doesn't follow their program a Russian asset and poof, they are cancelled and dismantled by the mob. The irony is you want the same apparatus to regulate private corporations because you feel they will help disseminate through the disinformation and know what is best. You literally want a nanny-state so you can feel comfortable and secure. Oh yeah, taxation is theft and at best extortion. But how else would we fund forever wars and bailout failing banks? It's okay Mr. authoritarian. What do billionaires have to do with it? Didn't Bernie Say they shouldn't exist? Should Millionaires exist? Who decides? Authoritarians, that's who.

What if she simply wants................................................ Peace.

Are corporations people or not? Wasn't that Citizens United thing all about that? These platforms get big because they are in demand. Once they show bias or users begin to not trust their privacy, then they move away. Granted, everyone has a different threshold as to when they change their behavior, but my point is it's up to the free will of the consumer, not a mob of consumers that want to use government to do what they deem is appropriate. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's immoral for group A to vote a majority to decide how to distribute groups A-Z's money by force. In this case, you don't *want* platforms at a certain size, but if you believe in freedom and property rights, then this is what would be referred to as aggression (thus violating the non aggression principle), where Group A forces all groups to infringe upon the property rights of private corporations because it meets the desirable standard based on Group A's feelings. You're an authoritarian and you wear the badge proudly.

You want state control of a private company that should wither away due to a distrust by those that use it. If you invite state control you invite the James Clapper's of the world to use it as a tool to suppress unpopular opinions. Your exact words: Option 1) Regulate its harms and force compliance. The Government/State is force man, no arguing your way around it. The relevance that Duck Duck Go and Bitchute have to the discussion is that they are available and in demand because of distrust in the mega-platforms: Youtube and Google. The moment you allow the state to regulate platforms is the day that we all say "please, let me swallow your entire boot, oh all knowing overlords" Once they get big enough to hurt people, we should all push for truth and say fuck your product and move to the platforms that allow the free exchange of ideas (no matter how offensive or distasteful they may be perceived.) The left ***ABSOLUTELY LOVED*** Rebutting the conservatives and libertarians when they criticized Twitter, Facebook and Youtube for censoring Alex Jones arguing, "they are private companies!" and now you want state control over these platforms? You think they'll be more objective in suppressing the correct amount of content at the appropriate (or dare I say allowable) threshold? Give me a fucking break.

Are you willing to put Bernie in the same company? As you mentioned: How about saying Fuck you to the corrupt DNC establishment and supporting your boy Bernie Sanders out of principle. How about serving in the military in the Wars she's opposed to? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/28/tulsi-gabbard-quits-dnc-support-bernie-sanders Please address her principled stance against the corrupt DNC establishment in defense of your boy Bernie Sanders. Why would she do that? Why isn't their an investigation by the military into her being a Rooskie?

Your assumption that people aren't critical consumers and conscience of the biases of the platforms they use is incorrect in my opinion. You don't think conservatives or libertarians have a discerning skepticism for platforms with the wave of censoring and suppression of conservative outlets? Alex Jones ring a bell? What was the left's main defense of the banning of Alex Jones again? "They are a privately held company so they can do what they want!" I agree that they have that right, even though I don't think it's a smart business move, but to say we need to regulate the information with more government is a slippery slope to exponentially progressing the surveillance state. Who are you to say what information one is allowed to see? It's up to us as consumers to disseminate the information and inform our opinions to see through the bullshit. Here's a novel idea, perhaps if the Federal government didn't have a monopoly on our schooling, we could have competing schools of thought rather than a cookie-cutter option to lead to more diversified ways of thinking. Just a thought. Also, are we to trust a centralized body of government officials to do what is right in regulating these platforms? The same apparatus that denied it was storing and collecting the cell phone records and data of the entire American Population (James Clapper/NSA?) Furthermore, there's something disturbingly authoritarian with your view in that you feel compelled to support force. Duck Duck Go and Bitchute are options for those that do not trust the overlords in Silicon Valley. The Jordan Peterson's and Dave Rubin's of the world are saying fuck you and creating their own projects for potential new platforms. That's the free market at work and it's done so voluntarily, with out government or without your precious force. And to think that Facebook or Youtube is pushing to satisfy a "libertarian dream" is so fucking divorced from reality that it seems like the script has flipped where I'm not the one wearing the "tin foil hat" anymore. Bernie is now a Russian Asset because he defended Gabbard and that is not allowed. It's in plain sight. Let me ask you point blank, because I think we actually agree with more than we think. Do you agree with any of these libertarian ideas: End the Wars? End the Federal Reserve? End the War on Drugs? Non Agression Principle? Lastly, how is anything above disturbing to you at all?

Jimmy Dore has a great take on things in my opinion, especially foreign policy and the surveillance state.

How about saying Fuck you to the corrupt DNC establishment and supporting your boy Bernie Sanders out of principle. How about serving in the military in the Wars she's opposed to? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/28/tulsi-gabbard-quits-dnc-support-bernie-sanders

Anyone's a Russian asset that doesn't tow the party line or the sacred establishment principle of forever war and interventionism. It's getting insanely Orwellian right now and I feel sorry for those that can't see it. "But Swindle, Tulsi can be a Russian asset unwittingly!" "But Swindle, Tulsi can be a Russian asset even though the Russians don't know she knows she's not an asset!" 95% of the establishment media and their ilk just regurgitate the same line, lock step and now they're going after Bernie. Could it be that Bernie is actually doing the right thing since Tulsi went to bat for him after speaking out against the corrupt DNC in the 2016 election? She took a risk and her actions were not allowable by the establishment. Plain and simple.

I hate to see Bernie added to their lists bt but maybe it’s an eye opener for you Bernie Bros

If one cannot see that McCarthyism is being used to smear those that are not towing the lines of the establishment, in this case the foreign policy line, then I hope you get that red pill ASAP. What we are witnessing is the old, entrenched power players acting out in desperation because they can’t control the narratives anymore because...ya know... memes and shit.

Add Sanders to that infamous list of Russian assets?

This is a good point regarding Tulsi and I’ve often wondered the answer to the same question:

Is it just me or is anyone else amazed at how many Russian twitter bots are liking Tulsi’s response to Hillary’s allegation that Tulsi is a Russian asset? 234k likes is kind of a lot. Putin must be selling the house to pay off Russian troll farms.

Some are saying it's about money.

Got pics from a friend inside the Trump Rally last night. He projected the demographics as follows: 90% White 65% Women

Dial it back? It's the fucking Cloak Room dude. People call each other "dumb fucking cunts" because they think the other posters on this board voted for someone they have been conditioned to hate. Give me a fucking break. Also, you fail to even consider the deeper point or discussion surrounding the Constitutionality of our occupations in the ME. At least I conceded to your view on what I had posted, but you can't even go one fucking iota to my side. Furthermore, you couldn't recommend anyone I should follow or research that you value as a source of information, why is that? Lastly, if the question of "why don't you go enlist?" is a "red herring" as you call it, then answer me this: If Trump decided to send our Troops back into Northern Syria, do you think it's worth sending your son or daughter over there to risk their lives? I'm expecting an Elizabeth Warren style dodge to this yes or no question from you btw, all while sucking in your own fart and holding it in like a bong rip.

He's making the claim based on the fact that the deployment of the troops into Northern Syria was unconstitutional to begin with and the process is ass backwards. Thus, it is unconstitutional since the original AUMF was never declared by Congress. I mean, you could argue that Congress proposing and voting on a resolution *condemning* Trump's withdrawal is constitutional within the purview of Congress' power for sure, and I can concede that on a technical level, but the fact is the AUMF into Syria was not constitutional. Massie's take doesn't really seem irrational given those facts, but then again I don't have a graduate degree. Were you critical of Trump when he unconstitutionally followed through with air strikes in Syria back in 2017? Or were you okay with those? Nice humble brag btw, you must like the smell of your own farts. Go ahead and respond by ignoring 80% of my questions, it only confirms that you're just another NPC.

I disagree with your assertion that Massie's take on this was asinine. It's asinine that our troops were deployed there in the first place (unconstitutional) and without a vote or declaration of war from Congress. So you believe that our troops deployment(s) to Syria during the Obama years was Constitutional? How about Trump's deployment of troops in SA? Wear that neo-con badge with honor Jimmy, I'm sure you think these deployments to defend the Kurds are worth enlisting in the military. When are you going to sign up?