aaawwww it's so nice to so you admit almost openly you have no actual reply or counter argument.
Trump Super PAC - update: and social media platform!
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The real question is what will it be called? "Trumper"? "DonaldBook"? "FaceTrump"? We know it has to contain his name one way or another.
You haven't supplied anything to argue against. You've just lifted a pointless nothingburger off trivial internet chatter as a distraction from the subject.
Trumper.
Because in the UK a Trump is slang for a fart and that's what a lot of social media is, farting and people thinking they're it and sniffing their own farts.
Actually I did otherwise you wouldn't have been able to try and argue that it was a whataboutism deflection.
Which BTW your own tangent would be a whataboutism as it's bringing up the side subject of who would be on there. A subject I was carrying on.
His personal brand is always "Trump..." something, so that sounds likely. Possibly, just possibly, if his advisors were savvy, they might have convinced him to something away from his personal brand ("MAGAchat"?)
So the advisor claims companies dashed to the Donald to offer their services. And it's going to be massive. A game-changer. The biggest revolution in social media since it started. I'm willing to bet you the reality is some chancer entrepreneur who has quickly assembled a team of jobbing coders, grabbed an off-the-shelf social media engine like Mastodon and quickly stuck some stuff on it. In fact, I could believe it's the sort of thing this site's ex-owner Alexander Macris would be all over.
The very nature of whataboutism is that it pretty much isn't an argument. I think you should stop derailing the thread.
oh by pointing out other people who would also join that you don't want to acknowledge after you brought up the subject of who would specifically join it?
Oh dear looks very much like a point you have no rebuttal for.
I think this comment sums up some of the general uselessness of your contributions:
1) it's badly constructed and hard to read
2) it's so vague it's not even clear what you mean
3) inasmuch as I can tell what you mean, it's not even correct because I have literally never asked who would join "it" in this thread (not that it's even clear what "it" is).
This started because I said Trump made a super PAC, at which point you made a (typically oblique and obtruse) reference to some sort of Democratic equivalent and throwing rocks from the moon, which was just whataboutism even if anyone had the faintest idea what you were talking about. And they usually don't because they aren't getting their information on the world from moronic internet rumour mills filled by gross triviality and people who can't tell truth from fiction.
3-day suspension issued for this and insults in other threads
Once again, @Dwarvenhobble comments are useless, adds nothing to the conversation and makes excuses for the problem in question, and does nothing else but the same whataboutism Houseman likes to pull off. This is why I have him on ignore, people.
I'd like to mention that I also have them on ignore. See, all the cool kids are doing it.
Funny you'd think it's useless when it's daring to offer information you don't like to counter what seems to be a rather one note echo chamber you would seemingly prefer.
You've still not been able to counter the point I raised.
You've just carried on this attempt to deflect and try to justify why you shouldn't have to respond by flailing about reaching for any possible reason you can think of.
1) Personal incredulity fallicy
2) see 2
3) No you propose who would join it. I offered others who would also join. You're seemingly upset that the people I suggested don't follow the little head cannon world view you seem to wish was real.
As for "Who are you talking about".
Meet the co-head of Rebellion PAC the other being Cenk Uygur
@BrawlMan considering you've previously stated you have me on ignore can you kindly SHUT THE FUCK UP about me or at least stop tagging me into posts deliberately to throw shit while doing so in such a way I have no real way to respond back to you specifically as it's already hidden from you?
As for adding nothing to the conversation, that is what you just did by deciding to state you views on me.
So was Agema's original one about the kind of person who'd join said social media site. If we're being strictly accurate here
This was before my comment about the audience who would join a Trump social media site
You just repeated yourself. Gab is literally just a Mastodon instance. Ironically the largest Mastodon instance. Which is why if you go looking at certain Mastodon clients they'll have a bunch of negative reviews about how they simply refuse to connect to some Mastodon instances or how they intentionally block the largest Mastodon instance and it's because a couple of the people who developed Mastodon clients just blacklist the Gab instance from being connected to by their client. Which is a bit like making an email client and not allowing users with outlook, hotmail, or live addresses to connect because you hate Microsoft.
Probably the best steaks in the world to eat with ketchup.
I'd go with "Trumpr" and model it after Twitter. Call the tweets "trumpets."
Give it 6 months before whichever cloud hosting provider handles their backend kills their account for letting Trumpers trumpet Trumpy things.
Now if they register their domain with whoever Stormfront uses (to keep their registrar from killing them), build all their own backend equipment (to avoid what happened to Parler), and do everything with cryptocurrency (to keep Visa/Mastercard from shutting them down) then they might not be at immediate risk of big tech and big finance just yeeting them out of existence on a whim.
They'd still only have a web interface, because neither Apple nor Google will allow an app to exist (and Google could potentially just blacklist a side loaded APK outright if it came down to it, the same way they explicitly block a certain Chrome extension that's bad for their business model).
And Google would almost certainly just explicitly block them from appearing in search results, like several other pages Google has deemed shall not be visible to their search.
It would seem Trump's fans aren't terribly excited about this new project:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k9g99/not-even-trump-fans-care-about-trumps-social-network
https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k9g99/not-even-trump-fans-care-about-trumps-social-network
Naw, they're just trying to come up with a new date where he's going to be secretly inaugurated as President and save the (white, English-speaking, Christian) world.