Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 62

Thread: Alex Jones: Why Won't President Trump Do Anything About This?

  1. #1

    Alex Jones: Why Won't President Trump Do Anything About This?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypLVPMRfudc

    Alex not happy that Trump won't stop online censorship.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Jones certainly isn't happy that his channel on Youtube got taken down. He probably thought he'd have it back by now.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Jones certainly isn't happy that his channel on Youtube got taken down. He probably thought he'd have it back by now.
    The reasons for his channel take down were the most ridicules. YT so far still hasnt taken down the pro Jihadist propagandist videos that exist on YT. Since YT allows that kind of stuff being allowed then its only fair they bring back his channel no?

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by AngryCanadian View Post
    The reasons for his channel take down were the most ridicules. YT so far still hasnt taken down the pro Jihadist propagandist videos that exist on YT. Since YT allows that kind of stuff being allowed then its only fair they bring back his channel no?
    They won't.

  6. #5
    I am against censorship but, is youtube a public utility or a private website? If they are considered private I suppose they can kick anyone off that they see fit. If they are public then AJ should be able to have a channel there. The left really got a bad hatred for him and they did everything they could to silence AJ. They would silence us all if they could and force everyone to agree with the BS they want us to believe fortunately for now thye don't have that much power. We do need to be watchful....

  7. #6
    Alex's channel should never have been closed, his faults aside.
    Youtube functions as a public utility , no one should be banned from any public forum,
    for anything less than a criminal offence committed on 'that' channel.

    Google works hand in hand with China to withhold, buffer, and censor communication,
    control speech, and manipulate the thoughts of a Billion plus Chinese. China has also
    moved in on Hollywood and is set to revise our entire history, eliminate key players
    of our heritage and replace them with characters favorable to their agenda, an agenda
    that most plan or hope to 'wish' away.

  8. #7
    Is it time for a new Un-American Activities Committee?

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Is it time for a new Un-American Activities Committee?
    Long past time.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    I am against censorship but, is youtube a public utility or a private website? If they are considered private I suppose they can kick anyone off that they see fit. If they are public then AJ should be able to have a channel there. The left really got a bad hatred for him and they did everything they could to silence AJ. They would silence us all if they could and force everyone to agree with the BS they want us to believe fortunately for now thye don't have that much power. We do need to be watchful....
    These platforms are public when it benefits big tech and private when it benefits big tech.
    JULESWIN-ISMS
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Bernie will bring about a more free market in the US than Trump. Hence the reason I wouldn't mind having him as my next president.
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    If the US govt ends their official and clandestine attacks on Venezuela, I can brush up on my Spanish and move there.

    @Ehanced_Deficit's real agenda on RPF :
    DNC-S (Soros)
    CLINTON-PELO-SCHIFF
    NYT-CNN-SOCIALIST
    CIA-B (Brennan)

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by eleganz View Post
    These platforms are public when it benefits big tech and private when it benefits big tech.
    SCOTUS ruled that social media was the public square unanimously.


    When it meant states couldn't ban sex predators.


    They don't seem interested in applying the public square principle to decent people.

  13. #11
    Which part of the Constitution allows the Senate or the President to regulate YouTube?

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by eleganz View Post
    These platforms are public when it benefits big tech and private when it benefits big tech.
    I am sorry for Alex Jones and others. AJ was on youtube for years and I watched him when he was on there. I still go watch him just to find out what he is saying about things. I buy several of his products as well. I would imagine AJ has lost a lot of viewers since being banned from youtube.
    what could Trump do about it? I think youtube would like to ban all channels that portray Trump in a good light or talk about the things we debate here. But they would lose too many viewers they lost some viewers by banning AJ but no doubt most of them came back. He pissed off a bunch of people over Sandy Hook and the gun grabbers did not like it. These people have a lot of power and they have not stopped fighting to ban guns, I wonder if we have the strength to keep fighting it. We better if we know what's good for us.

    I have seen that someone does up load some of AJ's stuff to youtube it gets taken down too. I know he does allow people to download and spread his recordings. I think there is a way AJ could repackage his message and let someone else deliver it but, will he?

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Which part of the Constitution allows the Senate or the President to regulate YouTube?
    The Bill of Rights and the first amendment. The modern Public Square. They are largely subsidized.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    I am sorry for Alex Jones and others. AJ was on youtube for years and I watched him when he was on there. I still go watch him just to find out what he is saying about things. I buy several of his products as well. I would imagine AJ has lost a lot of viewers since being banned from youtube.
    what could Trump do about it? I think youtube would like to ban all channels that portray Trump in a good light or talk about the things we debate here. But they would lose too many viewers they lost some viewers by banning AJ but no doubt most of them came back. He pissed off a bunch of people over Sandy Hook and the gun grabbers did not like it. These people have a lot of power and they have not stopped fighting to ban guns, I wonder if we have the strength to keep fighting it. We better if we know what's good for us.

    I have seen that someone does up load some of AJ's stuff to youtube it gets taken down too. I know he does allow people to download and spread his recordings. I think there is a way AJ could repackage his message and let someone else deliver it but, will he?
    David Knight ( @Libertytarian ) is one of my favorite Infowars reporters, he had been cancelled on Youtube for repeating SacBee article written about Hillary. It was, of course, satire but that didn't matter, he was banned without notice last year.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    The Bill of Rights and the first amendment.
    The First Amendment explicitly states that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It does not give Congress (nor the President) the authority regulate a private company in order to protect a particular speech.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    The First Amendment explicitly states that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It does not give Congress (nor the President) the authority regulate a private company in order to protect a particular speech.
    Youtube has been subsidized by government--hence they are not a private company, and called themselves before Congress the modern Public Square. It is the government's obligation to protect the first amendment here.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Youtube has been subsidized by government--hence they are not a private company,
    Is your standard that any private company that receives any amount of subsidy from the government becomes a government owned entity?

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Is your standard that any private company that receives any amount of subsidy from the government becomes a government owned entity?
    No that is not what I am saying. Government is there to protect our rights. Our money has been used to prop-up these companies and they have no right to take our voices from the public square.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  22. #19
    Here’s A Small-Government Solution To Section 230’s Big Tech Problem

    If we are going to provide Big Tech with a sweetheart deal, it must be a deal that also works for the American people. It's time to rewrite Section 230.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/14...-tech-problem/

    @familydog @donnay

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    Here’s A Small-Government Solution To Section 230’s Big Tech Problem

    If we are going to provide Big Tech with a sweetheart deal, it must be a deal that also works for the American people. It's time to rewrite Section 230.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/14...-tech-problem/

    @familydog @donnay
    I don't think government should be giving businesses sweetheart deals. That being said, Big Tech has become a monster monopoly and they have to be taken down to allow a free market of ideas to flourish. There should be no monopolies in a free society.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  24. #21
    Top Rated Influencer Danke's Avatar


    Posts
    41,852
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    The First Amendment explicitly states that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It does not give Congress (nor the President) the authority regulate a private company in order to protect a particular speech.
    You connect to the Internet though private companies...right?

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    No that is not what I am saying. Government is there to protect our rights. Our money has been used to prop-up these companies and they have no right to take our voices from the public square.
    I'm just trying to clarify your position. You posted:
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Youtube has been subsidized by government--hence they are not a private company
    So I wanted to know the specifics of your proposal. Google has well over 100,000 employees. If they are no longer a private company, are they employees of the general government? Do they get government benefits and pensions?

    In any case, where does the general government get the authority to deem a formerly private business a non-private business (let alone hand out subsidies and grants)?

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    You connect to the Internet though private companies...right?
    Internet service providers themselves are unconstitutionally regulated and subsidized. Adding another layer of unconstitutional activity will not solve the problem.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    Here’s A Small-Government Solution To Section 230’s Big Tech Problem

    If we are going to provide Big Tech with a sweetheart deal, it must be a deal that also works for the American people. It's time to rewrite Section 230.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/14...-tech-problem/

    @familydog @donnay
    That's probably the least Constitutionally problematic way forward. I can get behind that.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25

    First Things First

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    The Bill of Rights and the first amendment. The modern Public Square. They are largely subsidized.
    Then the solution is to get rid of the subsidies. YouTube has no right to public funds, and therefore, they have no right to be considered a "public square."

    If YouTube is censoring certain channels or individuals, then it has every right to do so, even if they're channels and individuals that we may like. The problem isn't that since they're receiving money that they shouldn't be allowed to censor anyone in the public domain; rather, the problem is they're receiving public revenues as a private entity. The sneaky culprit in this whole debacle is corporate welfare, not censorship to speech.
    "Diverse weights are an abomination unto the LORD, and a false balance is not good." - Proverbs 20:23

    "Lowering interest rates punishes people for saving, thus encouraging consumers and businesses to spend every penny they make...The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies harm the average American by eroding the dollar’s purchasing power." - Dr. Ron Paul

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    No that is not what I am saying. Government is there to protect our rights. Our money has been used to prop-up these companies and they have no right to take our voices from the public square.
    Google is a government creation from stem to stern.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    I'm just trying to clarify your position. You posted:


    So I wanted to know the specifics of your proposal. Google has well over 100,000 employees. If they are no longer a private company, are they employees of the general government? Do they get government benefits and pensions?

    In any case, where does the general government get the authority to deem a formerly private business a non-private business (let alone hand out subsidies and grants)?
    The carrot and stick applies here. If they take subsidies than they are not a private company and have share holders to answer to--in this regard it is government. If we had a truly free market and government was out of it, than a private company could censor whomever they want, but they wouldn't stay in business very long.

    Nevertheless, government has an obligation to protect it's citizen's rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights when other's violate them.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Then the solution is to get rid of the subsidies. YouTube has no right to public funds, and therefore, they have no right to be considered a "public square."

    If YouTube is censoring certain channels or individuals, then it has every right to do so, even if they're channels and individuals that we may like. The problem isn't that since they're receiving money that they shouldn't be allowed to censor anyone in the public domain; rather, the problem is they're receiving public revenues as a private entity. The sneaky culprit in this whole debacle is corporate welfare, not censorship to speech.
    I couldn't agree with you more.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Google is a government creation from stem to stern.
    Yes, and if a free market was allowed we would have a lot more competition.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    The carrot and stick applies here. If they take subsidies than they are not a private company and have share holders to answer to--in this regard it is government.
    I hope you understand that millions of private businesses within the United States accept both subsidies and/or grants in some form or another. The logical conclusion of your argument would lead to a Communist-style takeover of much of the private sector.

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    If we had a truly free market and government was out of it, than a private company could censor whomever they want, but they wouldn't stay in business very long.
    This is a strange argument to make. A left wing book publisher can censor speech and selectively publish works that is agrees with and still be financially successful. A true free market decentralizes and creates profitable niches of all kinds.

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Nevertheless, government has an obligation to protect it's citizen's rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights when other's violate them.
    At heart, I'm an anarcho-capitalist. So I entirely disagree that the role of the state is to do anything but be abolished. However, since we do live within a statist society, I want a state that is the least centralized as possible. In order to have that we must have a federal republic. Applying a document meant for the general government to 50 individual States destroys the concept of a federal republic and helps to creates a super-state that would make even Alexander Hamilton blush.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Alex Jones calls out President Trump
    By Warlord in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-28-2019, 08:22 PM
  2. Alex Jones: WHY IS PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTING SUICIDE?
    By Warlord in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-12-2019, 07:58 PM
  3. Alex Jones: “I want Rand Paul to become President”
    By ObiRandKenobi in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-05-2015, 11:53 PM
  4. JBS President John McManus on Alex Jones (youtube, 50 mins)
    By emazur in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-26-2009, 10:15 PM
  5. Should we get Alex Jones to run for President?
    By dude58677 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 11-27-2008, 07:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •