Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#951

Post by rubyist5eva »

gameswithgo wrote: post #227
rubyist5eva wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democratic members of congress have repeatedly called for the breakup and/or regulation of "big tech", just for different reasons.

As a liberal in big tech, I can assure you the primary motivation is that we are 1. horrified by trump, always have been 2. aren't concerned that trump will unilaterally end our business if we oppose him anymore 3. are extremely concerned about american democracy and our lives, given the way trump has convinced almost half the country that the election was rigged, which has encouraged them to almost kill an entire br…

Yeah, 3 years of fake Russian collusion and peepee tapes and a waste of a special counsel, followed by months of BLM riots where over 30 people died. And a literally insurrection in the CHAZ/CHOP where they actually tried to declare separate sovereignty from the united states and annexing land...I don't really take liberals opinions that seriously.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#952

Post by sumedh »

LunaSea wrote: post #854
sumedh wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that equivalent to Trump trying to steal an election and then sending rioters to terrorize Congress?

Where did you read that I wrote that both were equivalent? I'm just showing an example where a Presidential candidate pretended to support a movement that had violent elements in it. Said candidate repudiated their support after being elected, lying to his voters in the process.

> I'm just showing an example where a Presidential candidate

No that is not the right example, do you have proof that Biden call the violent protestors that they are special and that he loves them like Trump?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#953

Post by sumedh »

sholdery wrote: post #802
sumedh wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left? > Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? What consensus and compromise do you want when the President of the US wants to "find" the votes or when calls the rioters good people and we love you?

There is lots of evidence of fraud but people wouldn’t know about it as it’s censored on big tech and mainstream news.

Then why wasn't all this evidence shown to the courts. Guliani even said in a court that this not a fraud case, that is what the Trump admin does they lie to people on TV but since they cannot lie in courts they lost the cases.

Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected these cases.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#954

Post by sumedh »

ghthor wrote: post #888
sumedh wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left? > Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? What consensus and compromise do you want when the President of the US wants to "find" the votes or when calls the rioters good people and we love you?

Sen Cortez, Sen Warren, Sen Sanders, Rep Pelosi are a good start.

Can you give any specific examples?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#955

Post by avs733 »

wtfiswiththis wrote: post #625
S_A_P wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just it. A lot of people of all political persuasions are reasonable and rational. I don’t think the current administration is at all. I’m a generally middle of the road guy that has a general viewpoint of live and let live. The problem is we are letting fringe opinions dictate the narrative.

Can't help but notice you didn't answer this: >Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left?

It’s funny how that never gets answered...

I really am befuddled at the inability of people to be taken in by bad faith arguments like this.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#956

Post by antifreeze0 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #639
antifreeze0 wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact his father is meeting with Chinese companies through him is at the very least something that should be investigated and reported on, don’t you think?

B...b...b...but Ivanka! See, isn't this fun?

She isn’t setting up meetings with companies owned by the Chinese government. What is your point?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#957

Post by antifreeze0 »

awb wrote: post #651
antifreeze0 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Do you have a quote from the Young Turks? With BLM there’s an argument to be made that public policy backed by Republicans (and Democrats) created an environment where blacks are disproportionately targeted and harmed by police without consequence, resulting in the inevitable death of yet another unarmed black man. With the capital riots, all Democrats did was win an election and every single resulting court case. Pl…

[dead]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#958

Post by sholdery »

sumedh wrote: post #953
sholdery wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is lots of evidence of fraud but people wouldn’t know about it as it’s censored on big tech and mainstream news.

Then why wasn't all this evidence shown to the courts. Guliani even said in a court that this not a fraud case, that is what the Trump admin does they lie to people on TV but since they cannot lie in courts they lost the cases. Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected these cases.

The courts have refused to accept the case. It didn’t have the opportunity to be shown in court.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#959

Post by gwright »

Artistry121 wrote: post #818
gwright wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> public policy backed by Republicans Are you asserting that Republicans controlled the cities and police forces in which "blacks are disproportionately targeted and harmed by police without consequence"?

No... * defunding schools in minority areas via how school funding is created * war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing * selling military grade equipment to local police forces * supporting private prison infrastructure * preventing open discussion of criminal justice reform despite having the largest prison population in the developed world * sending drugs into minority communities via the CIA * supporting po…

> It’s not like cities “control their police departments”.

All the things you listed (except for perhaps the selling of military equipment) is part of the policing responsibility of the states and local government. Those authorities have the authority and responsibility to "control their police departments"

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#960

Post by alphabettsy »

casefields wrote: post #754
alphabettsy wrote: post #338

He had accounts banned after calling for the beheading of Fauci and FBI director Wray just a couple of months ago. https://www.timesofisrael.com/twitter-bans-former-trump-advi... We should stop pretending like this is about conservative ideology, it’s about creating an environment for violence with lies and repeated calls for violence coming from Trump associates. Nobody is calling for the deplatforming of John Kasic…

Putting heads on a pike and making heads roll, are idioms for firing or dismissing accountable public officials. Unless of course something thinks he's a Hitler in training just waiting for his chance at the Fourth Reich.

Watch the video. It doesn’t appear to be a euphemism.
Post reply on HN