Facebook has tried its hardest to avoid taking action against posts from President Trump that broke its own rules. But on Wednesday, that long-running effort finally ran aground against a rambling diatribe from the president about children and the coronavirus.
It’s a shift that could have an enormous impact on Trump’s re-election effort. While political spending is a small fraction of Facebook’s overall revenue, political ads make up a more significant chunk of campaign spending. Team Trump has made Facebook—with its uneven enforcement of its rules against disinformation—a cornerstone of its campaign, spending more than $35 million in ads on the social network in 2020.
Facebook’s top-trending news stories of the day are almost always from the president or his supporters, according to the social media tracking tool CrowdTangle. The Trump campaign even spent $325,000 promoting Facebook pages run by Brad Parscale, the president’s former campaign manager, according to The New York Times.
In an appearance on Fox News Wednesday morning, Trump told the hosts of Fox & Friends that children are “almost immune” from COVID-19.
“If you look at children, children are almost—and I would almost say definitely—but almost immune from this disease,” Trump said. “They’ve got much stronger immune systems than we do somehow for this. And they don’t have a problem. They just don’t have a problem.”
After Trump posted a clip of the appearance with those comments on his Facebook page, the social media site took down the post. “This video includes false claims that a group of people is immune from COVID-19, which is a violation of our policies around harmful COVID misinformation,” Facebook said in a statement.
In response to Facebook’s takedown of the president’s video, the Trump campaign accused the social media company of “bias” and claimed that Trump’s statement proclaiming children “almost immune” from the virus that causes COVID-19 was instead a statement merely that “children are less susceptible to the coronavirus.”
“Another day, another display of Silicon Valley’s flagrant bias against this President, where the rules are only enforced in one direction,” Trump campaign spokeswoman Courtney Parella said in a statement. “Social media companies are not the arbiters of truth.”
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg told lawmakers in an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee last week that the company would take down medical misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, including specific false claims about the existence of a “cure” for the disease like hydroxychloroquine.
While the company’s content policies have long applied to ordinary users, Facebook has sought to avoid enforcing them against public officials, including Trump.
In 2019, the company announced that it would treat all posts by public officials as exempt from its rules under a 2016 policy that exempted otherwise infringing content in the event that the company considered it “newsworthy.”
“Would it be acceptable to society at large to have a private company in effect become a self-appointed referee for everything that politicians say?” Nick Clegg, Facebook’s vice president of global affairs and communications, said. “I don’t believe it would be. In open democracies, voters rightly believe that, as a general rule, they should be able to judge what politicians say themselves.”
As Trump’s social media posts have become more erratic and offensive over the past few months, Facebook’s hands-off policy towards officialdom has put greater pressure on the company to act.
“At this point I give them a participation trophy and not applause,” Lisa Kaplan, founder of the disinformation-tracking firm Alethea Group told The Daily Beast said of the company’s decision to take down the Trump post. “It appears Facebook is following the lead of other tech companies by enforcing its policies. I’m heartened to see them taking action because the danger of disinformation coming from any trusted voice is that people see it, believe it, and change their behavior. Especially in the case of the coronavirus pandemic, changing your behavior could be the difference between life and death.”
In May, Twitter applied a warning label to a tweet from Trump threatening violence against protesters in the wake of the Minneapolis police’s killing of George Floyd. Twitter’s decision to label Trump’s threat that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” as “glorification of violence” which could risk “inspir[ing] similar actions” led some employees at Facebook to protest their company’s relative inaction by coordinating a virtual walkout at the company.
Twitter took things a step further against Trump’s campaign account late Wednesday, just hours after Facebook removed the president’s misleading post. The social media giant said the president’s “Team Trump” account would not be allowed to tweet again until it removed video of Trump making the same claim about children being “almost immune” to the coronavirus. A Twitter spokeswoman quoted by The Washington Post said the video “is in violation of the Twitter Rules on COVID-19 misinformation. The account owner will be required to remove the Tweet before they can Tweet again.”
The Democrats have a better campaign strategy. Avoid putting Biden in front of live cameras and avoid letting him speak (or tweet, comment online, whatever) publicly as much as possible. As sad as it is, at least Biden has age-related mental health decline as the (likely) reason for his gaffs. If Biden wins though, he'll have to rely heavily on his handlers, not unlike George W Bush.
So now Trump & the Republican Party are going to destroy the Post Office because mail in voting is evil even tho Trump and countless Republicans have used mail in voting for decades.
The end result of this is less ability for Trump supporters to get the mail but they don't care. I have relatives who have never once EVER in the decades I've known them mentioned mail in voting being "bad" not one time but because Trump doesn't like it apparently its the worst thing ever. Fuckin sheep.
Last Edit: Aug 8, 2020 9:41:37 GMT -5 by ForRealTho
A Trump supporter told me it was "fake" and "she watched him and he didn't say that"
When I posted proof she said "Well I wouldn't allow it either because people mail in ballots with dogs names" then I guess realizing how ridiculous she sounds she deleted the whole thing.
The constitution says the Post Office is an essential service but Trump will destroy it to stay in office. Its really pathetic.
Last Edit: Aug 13, 2020 19:19:39 GMT -5 by ForRealTho
If he admits he's sabotaging a legal way to vote, wouldn't that be quite significant? I mean, interfering with an election? That's dictator-style politics...
To Protect and Sever - Baton courtesy, service with a smile
If he admits he's sabotaging a legal way to vote, wouldn't that be quite significant? I mean, interfering with an election? That's dictator-style politics...
Its treasonous since the constitution says the post office is an essential service. Also despite attacking mail in voting over and over check this:
If he admits he's sabotaging a legal way to vote, wouldn't that be quite significant? I mean, interfering with an election? That's dictator-style politics...
Absolutely! The problem is, voter suppression has been a good Republican strategy for a long time, so this could make a big difference, especially since there are way more Republicans who believe COVID-19 is a conspiracy, and have no fear when voting in person. Since the politicians want to keep their jobs, Democrats can't get shit done in the senate, and very few Republican voters are pushing back, there's fuck all that can be done legislatively in time for the election. Maybe a judge could step in somehow, but I'm not sure how that would help us in the short term.
We need Republican voters to light a fire under congress's ass, or vote for Biden. The left side of the aisle also needs to sack up and physically drop off ballots. Since every town and state can do things differently, I don't know how common this is, but in my town, there is a ballot drop-off box at Town Hall which bypasses the USPS.
Democrats are running ads informing voters on what he's doing, which is good, but I don't think it will make enough of a difference. I think the message needs to be, "If you not at high risk, please show the fuck up physically, so we can ditch this fucking clown, because there is no other way!" If he gets away with all of this, not only do we have to deal with him for another 4 years, but it also sets a scary precedent.
It actually boggles my mind how so many people are so willfully ignorant to how far authoritarian we have become in the last 20 years. They all hate the fascist dictatorships of the past, but they can't see these early signs happening right under their noses. Obviously, Trump isn't Hitler, but if we made Trump supporters and modern Republicans watch Hitler's speeches, I think most of them would be shocked at how many of his talking points they actually agree with. "Eradicating the jews" wouldn't be as popular, but most of his rhetoric sounds like a Trump rally.
If he admits he's sabotaging a legal way to vote, wouldn't that be quite significant? I mean, interfering with an election? That's dictator-style politics...
The article below provides some factual info on the topic. The historical precedent is mail in voting specifically for soldiers during wartime, which started with the Civil War. It wasn't until 1980 that a state (California) allowed anybody to vote by mail for any reason.
Of course, the laws are different from state to state. Other states allowed mail-in voting much later, such as Hawaii, which made it law just last year (2019). And others have yet to make it law. Clearly, it's something being decided on the state level. If they could get Congress to pass a law or set some legal precedent with a Supreme Court ruling (perhaps saying that the voting rights of soldiers during wartime should cover all citizens) for mail in voting on the national level, that would solve the debate. Of course, doing this so close to the election would be highly suspect.
Trump's main talking point on this topic is that substantial mail in voter fraud has been found in New Jersey. Honestly can't say that I doubt him on this particular point because NJ is notoriously corrupt with high crime rate and organized crime rings. I found out about NJ's high crime rate while working for Nissan's Finance division/call center back in the early 2000's, where I heard stories of vehicle thefts from hundreds of customers living in NJ, and they often blamed organized crime. It sounded like something out of those John Wick movies.. how the movie depicts chop-shops full of stolen cars and powerful crime bosses overseeing it.
Oh, and about hoping Trump wouldn’t tweet about Paterson? Too late.
For whatever reason, Twitter neglected to put a fact-check on this tweet about the risks of mail-in voting.
A Trump supporter told me it was "fake" and "she watched him and he didn't say that"
When I posted proof she said "Well I wouldn't allow it either because people mail in ballots with dogs names" then I guess realizing how ridiculous she sounds she deleted the whole thing.
The constitution says the Post Office is an essential service but Trump will destroy it to stay in office. Its really pathetic.
The Post Office being underfunded is old news though. The Post Office has been underfunded and in the red for decades, including during Obama's terms as president.
Congress is responsible for drafting spending bills and the president doesn't get anything they don't include in the bills. If this were a priority to House Democrats, why didn't they make it a package deal long ago (in previous spending bill/s) and insist the president sign, before granting him spending on the things he wanted? I'd ask Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, and the Democrat controlled Congress why this 11th hour demand is a sudden priority so close to the election. If establishing nationalized mail in voting is such a high priority, at the very least, this indicates poor planning on part of the Democrats by waiting 'til the last minute and then blaming the president.
The Post Office being underfunded is old news though. The Post Office has been underfunded and in the red for decades, including during Obama's terms as president.
Congress is responsible for drafting spending bills and the president doesn't get anything they don't include in the bills. If this were a priority to House Democrats, why didn't they make it a package deal long ago (in previous spending bill/s) and insist the president sign, before granting him spending on the things he wanted? I'd ask Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, and the Democrat controlled Congress why this 11th hour demand is a sudden priority so close to the election. If establishing nationalized mail in voting is such a high priority, at the very least, this indicates poor planning on part of the Democrats by waiting 'til the last minute and then blaming the president.
I agree the Dems(and Reps) should have figured out the mail in voting thing when it became clear how bad the Coronavirus is but people were too busy playing politics about it.
A bill was passed back in I think 2006 that forces the Post Office to fund its pension plans up to 70 years from now. No other agency is required to do this. This is why its budget is so high. We don't ask the FBI, CIA, or the NSA to run a profit so why should we require that of the USPS?
Its funny to me that so many gun owners point out over and over the 2nd Amendment is in the constitution but the USPS is in the constitution so where is the widespread outrage from right wingers? I have seen some but not as much as there should be. Why aren't the 2nd Amendment people out in front of the White house with their assault rifles "defending the constitution" after what Trump said?
Last Edit: Aug 15, 2020 19:27:08 GMT -5 by ForRealTho
The Post Office being underfunded is old news though. The Post Office has been underfunded and in the red for decades, including during Obama's terms as president.
Congress is responsible for drafting spending bills and the president doesn't get anything they don't include in the bills. If this were a priority to House Democrats, why didn't they make it a package deal long ago (in previous spending bill/s) and insist the president sign, before granting him spending on the things he wanted? I'd ask Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, and the Democrat controlled Congress why this 11th hour demand is a sudden priority so close to the election. If establishing nationalized mail in voting is such a high priority, at the very least, this indicates poor planning on part of the Democrats by waiting 'til the last minute and then blaming the president.
I agree the Dems(and Reps) should have figured out the mail in voting thing when it became clear how bad the Coronavirus is but people were too busy playing politics about it.
A bill was passed back in I think 2006 that forces the Post Office to fund its pension plans up to 70 years from now. No other agency is required to do this. This is why its budget is so high. We don't ask the FBI, CIA, or the NSA to run a profit so why should we require that of the USPS?
Its funny to me that so many gun owners point out over and over the 2nd Amendment is in the constitution but the USPS is in the constitution so where is the widespread outrage from right wingers? I have seen some but not as much as there should be. Why aren't the 2nd Amendment people out in front of the White house with their assault rifles "defending the constitution" after what Trump said?
Yeah, there's no reason we shouldn't have mail-in voting and security measures to prevent fraud. It's really just a matter of govt getting it done and approving the funds.
I don't know of any average person (excluding politicians) that hates or feels strongly about the Post Office. The main issue is apathy. Too few care enough to pressure to politicians on the issue. Similar problem with weak funding for NASA, CDC, and various science & health related agencies. We could be decades ahead of where we are if science & tech research were a priority for voters.
At the end of the day, most of the moderates and swing voters vote based on their wallets (the economy/investments and jobs/unemployment), since the incumbent president almost always wins when the economy is doing well and loses when it's not.
Last Edit: Aug 16, 2020 15:20:43 GMT -5 by Deleted
Right Wing media: "All the left and MSM can do is call trump a racist over and over"
Trump supporters:
Jesus, I just watched this. I'm speechless.
I was going to say Trump's "build the wall" rhetoric was intended to reel in the racist voters.
However, after googling it, I found something interesting. It used to be, not that long ago actually, that a majority of Americans (including Democrats) supported a border barrier. This only changed after Trump entered politics.
...
Not only that, but in early 2006 a Time/SRBI poll found that a slim majority (52 percent) of Democrats also favored “building a security fence along the 2,000-mile US-Mexican border.” Sixty-one percent (61 percent) of Republicans also agreed. Between 2005 and 2015, polls show that nearly half of Democrats continued to support building a border barrier of some kind.
However, things changed in 2015 when Donald Trump announced his bid for the presidency. Since then opposition rose upwards among the general public. Analyzing more than 150 polls conducted between 2007 and 2018 from the Roper Center iPoll Databank reveals that an average of 43 percent of Americans opposed building a border wall between 2007-2014. Opposition increased to 48 percent in 2015, 58 percent in 2016, and 61 percent in 2017, and then back to 59 percent in 2018.
Democratic support shifted more swiftly starting in the fall of 2015 onward. Now only about 12 percent of Democrats support a border wall or fence. As the charts above demonstrate, Trump's entry into politics (and making immigration issues salient) played a major role in turning the public against the border wall.
Given this pre-Trump poll data regarding the border fence, it's evident imo that Trump was playing to the polls and the majority's pre-existing desires for a border fence. Always easy to blame somebody else, rather than doing some introspection and owning up to one's own faults...
I still contend that Hillary lost because a majority of voters thought she was batshit insane or too corrupt (i.e. private email server compromising top secret intelligence data, dozens of U.S. secret agents died from intelligence leaks, Benghazi, the bombings of Lebenon and other parts of the middle east, wanting to enforce a no fly zone over Syria and risk WWIII, Clinton Foundation funneling bribe money through Canada to skirt US laws requiring identification of "donors", etc). People were tired of Bush-style wargames in the middle east and Hillary solidified (in her speeches and actions) that she'd likely be a continuation of corrupt policy using the U.S. military for profiteering or whatever. I don't condone racist rhetoric or building a wall. I'm just saying, the alternative was Hillary and her continued misuse of the military, which is just as bad if not worse (because you know hundreds or thousands of innocents die when our military is used to bomb those countries).
If the Dems would've offered up a decent candidate, it shouldn't have been too difficult to defeat Trump. Biden seems better than Hillary, so maybe he has a chance. I'm still not crazy about this pick tho. He's bottom of the barrel among the choices they had, but they picked him anyway. He's an entrenched life-long and status quo politician who's not going to bring about the changes people want. All he did before politics was attend an Ivy League University and play (American) football. Also, he appears to be showing early signs of dementia. Seems like they want a puppet who's easy to control and/or they hope that he'll become too ill & step aside, allowing Kamala to take his place.
Last Edit: Aug 18, 2020 13:58:33 GMT -5 by Deleted
I was going to say Trump's "build the wall" rhetoric was intended to reel in the racist voters.
However, after googling it, I found something interesting. It used to be, not that long ago actually, that a majority of Americans (including Democrats) supported a border barrier. This only changed after Trump entered politics.
Yeah, even Cesar Chavez, Paul Krugman (nobel laureate in Economics, on the list to serve Hillary Clinton if she'd been elected, and Barbara Jordan (first Black woman to deliver keynote speeches at a Democratic National Convention). Lol, it's been non-stop open warfare for years over their wikipedia pages in regards their positions.
Barbara Charline Jordan (February 21, 1936 – January 17, 1996) was an American lawyer, educator[1] and politician who was a leader of the Civil Rights Movement. A Democrat, she was the first African American elected to the Texas Senate after Reconstruction and the first Southern African-American woman elected to the United States House of Representatives.[2] She was best known for her eloquent opening statement[3] at the House Judiciary Committee hearings during the impeachment process against Richard Nixon, and as the first African-American as well as the first woman to deliver a keynote address at the 1976 Democratic National Convention. She received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, among numerous other honors. She was a member of the Peabody Awards Board of Jurors from 1978 to 1980.[4] She was the first African-American woman to be buried in the Texas State Cemetery.[5][6]
Jordan's work as chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, which recommended reducing legal immigration by about one-third, is frequently cited by American immigration restrictionists.[7][8]
First, the benefits of immigration to the population already here are small. The reason is that immigrant workers are, at least roughly speaking, paid their “marginal product”: an immigrant worker is paid roughly the value of the additional goods and services he or she enables the U.S. economy to produce. That means that there isn’t anything left over to increase the income of the people already here.
You might ask why, in that case, there are any gains from immigration. The answer is that when a country receives a lot of immigrants, the wage paid to immigrants reflects the marginal product of the last immigrant, which is less than that of earlier immigrants. So there is some gain. But as Mr. Hanson explains in his paper, reasonable calculations suggest that we’re talking about very small numbers, perhaps as little as 0.1 percent of GDP.
There is, by the way, a possible out from this argument in the case of high-skill immigrants. You could argue that, say, South Asian engineers who move to Silicon Valley add to the dynamism of the region, generating benefits much larger than their wages. (Economists know that I’m talking about “positive externalities.”) But that’s not an argument you can easily make about Mexican migrants who haven’t completed high school.
My second negative point is that immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants. That’s just supply and demand: we’re talking about large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages. Mr. Borjas and Mr. Katz have to go through a lot of number-crunching to turn that general proposition into specific estimates of the wage impact, but the general point seems impossible to deny.
Finally, the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear. Mr. Hanson uses some estimates from the National Research Council to get a specific number, around 0.25 percent of G.D.P. Again, I think that you’d be hard pressed to find any set of assumptions under which Mexican immigrants are a net fiscal plus, but equally hard pressed to make the burden more than a fraction of a percent of G.D.P.
In fact, even before he started the union and fought against illegal immigration, he was opposed to the bracero program, which legally imported cheap, disposable labor from Mexico at the expense of American citizens (of Mexican and other origins) who had been working in the fields. Pawel quotes Chavez as saying, “It looks almost impossible to start some effective program to get these people their jobs back from the braceros.”
Congress ended the bracero program in 1964, and the next 15 years were the salad days, as it were, for farmworkers — until illegal immigration became so pervasive (despite Chavez’s efforts) that workers lost all bargaining power.
But during those 15 years, Chavez fought illegal immigration tenaciously. In 1969, he marched to the Mexican border to protest farmers’ use of illegal aliens as strikebreakers. He was joined by Reverend Ralph Abernathy and Senator Walter Mondale.
In the mid 1970s, he conducted the “Illegals Campaign” to identify and report illegal workers, “an effort he deemed second in importance only to the boycott” (of produce from non-unionized farms), according to Pawel. She quotes a memo from Chavez that said, “If we can get the illegals out of California, we will win the strike overnight.”
The Illegals Campaign didn’t just report illegals to the (unresponsive) federal authorities. Cesar sent his cousin, ex-con Manuel Chavez, down to the border to set up a “wet line” (as in “wetbacks”) to do the job the Border Patrol wasn’t being allowed to do. Unlike the Minutemen of a few years ago, who arrived at the border with no more than lawn chairs and binoculars, the United Farm Workers patrols were willing to use direct methods when persuasion failed. Housed in a series of tents along the Arizona border, the crews in the wet line sometimes beat up illegals, the “cesarchavistas” employing violence even more widely on the Mexican side of the border to prevent crossings.
"I believe we have very serious immigration problems in this country," Sanders said during a 2007 press event, with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka behind him. "I think as you've heard today, sanctions against employers who employ illegal immigrants is virtually nonexistent. Our border is very porous."
“And I think at a time when the middle class is shrinking, the last thing we need is to bring over in a period of years, millions of people into this country who are prepared to lower wages for American workers,” he later added. Sanders voted against the 2007 bill, but went on to vote in favor of a similar 2013 bill while making plain his fears that it could exacerbate the issue of immigrant workers “making it harder for US citizens to find jobs.”
"If you open the borders, there's a lot of poverty in this world, and you're going to have people from all over the world. And I don't think that's something that we can do at this point. Can't do it."
One last one:
Last Edit: Aug 18, 2020 21:57:16 GMT -5 by Babel-17
However, after googling it, I found something interesting. It used to be, not that long ago actually, that a majority of Americans (including Democrats) supported a border barrier. This only changed after Trump entered politics.
Being raised in Alaska a border wall with Mexico was never something I thought much about. Also I was raised on a military base, the military is very diverse as is the city of Anchorage where I grew up so I never thought about "omg there are too many Hispanics and we need to stop them from coming!" which seems to be the mindset of some people.
When I moved to Arizona before Trump's candidacy the border with Mexico was a much bigger deal then Alaska but I don't recall talk of building a huge wall in 2008-2014 when I lived there. It was more about "increasing patrols" and a ton of drama about SB 1070. That bill basically made it so the cops would ask you for your papers if they had "reasonable suspicion" you might be an illegal immigrant. Easy to see how that could be abused. The media went on and on and on about it for months.
Bill spent his entire career being a centrist corporate Democrat. When I started paying attention to politics in the 1990s as a kid they made him out to be Karl Marx reincarnated out to destroy God, mom, and apple pie.
However, after googling it, I found something interesting. It used to be, not that long ago actually, that a majority of Americans (including Democrats) supported a border barrier. This only changed after Trump entered politics.
Being raised in Alaska a border wall with Mexico was never something I thought much about. Also I was raised on a military base, the military is very diverse as is the city of Anchorage where I grew up so I never thought about "omg there are too many Hispanics and we need to stop them from coming!" which seems to be the mindset of some people.
When I moved to Arizona before Trump's candidacy the border with Mexico was a much bigger deal then Alaska but I don't recall talk of building a huge wall in 2008-2014 when I lived there. It was more about "increasing patrols" and a ton of drama about SB 1070. That bill basically made it so the cops would ask you for your papers if they had "reasonable suspicion" you might be an illegal immigrant. Easy to see how that could be abused. The media went on and on and on about it for months.
I was born and raised in Texas. As a kid, I played with neighborhood hispanic kids. I haven't thought or heard much about a border wall either, until Trump. When Trump was campaigning about it, I knew it was a bad idea and probably wouldn't happen anyway. Obviously, it's one of those empty campaign promises to appeal to the crowd who wanted it.
imo, many of politicians and business leaders covertly support the idea (through media propaganda and the like) that the issue is supposed to be about race, as a distraction while they line their pockets. This setup allows them greater access to cheap labor and easily swayed voters. By employing more undocumented immigrants (people denied formal recognition & documentation), they're skimping out on granting them equal rights, worker protections, fair pay, and benefits. Use the media & education system to program everybody into thinking it's entirely about racism and label anyone a racist who doesn't support their system of human exploitation. It's the perfect setup, guilt people into believing they're racist if they oppose or say anything about the exploitation. imo, it'd be better to give all undocumented immigrants green cards or some kind of legal status, and convert them to documented. This should be especially demanded from the people who's official stance is that all immigrants have a right to be here. I question the motives of anybody who wants illegals to remain illegal and work here with that status, because that's support of continued exploitation.
I'm not a fan of the Clintons. But what if Clinton's motivations weren't racist? Supposedly, he was big on balancing the budget. Right? Illegal immigration arguably has a negative impact on the budget, because undocumented immigrants are undervalued (paid significantly less than they should be) and they're paid under the table (avoiding taxes, prohibiting them from contributing to the budget). Poor people spend most of their money, unless they're paid so little they have almost nothing to spend (like undocumented immigrants), and the rich spend a very small % of their money. Basically, this system puts less money in the pockets of people who spend most of their money and it puts more money in the pockets of the people who spend a very small %, something that right-wing economists will tell you is bad for the economy. All the more reason everybody (on the left and right) to oppose the exploitation and grant them documentation & rights. Of course, it won't happen because it would cost the rich billions, and the status quo & race war propaganda will likely continue.
Last Edit: Aug 19, 2020 16:23:42 GMT -5 by Deleted
Its almost like everyone Trump associates with is a total scumbag. Bannon also spent time trying to organize Neo-Nazis in Europe after being fired by Trump