If you were to go to any politician’s tweets, you would often find a lot of people expressing opposing views to what the tweets say or even to what the politician generally believes, disregarding what the tweet actually says. This is often the case for President Trump’s personal Twitter account, Nancy Pelosi, and even for many news sites that share political news and generally fake news.
However, the media finds this to mean heavy opposition to something or someone in general. So when writing their news, they say things along the lines of “social media erupted about person x’s position” or “person y received some major fire on social media for this particular action.”
That is often the mistake the media makes, in believing the views expressed on social media are a reflection of the country as a whole. However, that is a mistake for a number of reasons.
Reason number 1, and perhaps most importantly, only 22% of Americans use Twitter. That leaves another 78% of Americans without being able to express their own opinions on something and the media takes what they do see as a general reflection of the country’s views.
Reason number 2, Pew Research Center found that, while 39% of the users that were studied (out of a total of 2,400) tweeted at least one time about national politics, the vast majority of political Twitter, or 97%, came from just 10% of users. Meaning that the number of people who are often engaged in politics on the social media site is exceedingly small.
What’s more, the vast majority of that 10% are heavy critics of Trump, make up 80% of all tweets from US adults (meaning that these anti-Trumpers would tweet far more often than those who do not necessarily actively hate Trump) and generated 72% of the tweets talking about politics. By contrast, those who strongly approve of Trump made up only 11% of tweets from US adults and 25% of tweets about politics.
This tells me a few things. First, the Never Trumpers have no lives. Second, some shadow banning or outright banning is likely in play here. And finally, Trump supporters have better things to do with their lives than to stay engaged 24/7 being offended and triggered by just about everything they see. I know that last point is similar to the first, but it’s worth pointing out.
What’s also rather interesting are the numbers regarding age demographics. Boomers, those aged 65 and older, while they only produced 10% of all US adult tweets, contributed 33% to the political tweets. Those aged 50 and older produced 29% of all tweets, but contributed 73% of political ones. Finally, those aged 18-29 produced 20% of all tweets, but a surprisingly low 4% of all political tweets.
There could be a number of reasons for why these numbers are what they are. For one, millennials might simply not make up too huge of a population on Twitter. Yes, while they are seemingly double the number of boomers (in the study, at least), Twitter is far from the most popular social media site for younger generations. Among 18-24 year olds, 44% said they use Twitter, compared to 73% who say they use Snapchat, 75% who say they use Instagram, 90% who say they use YouTube (though not certain that one counts as social media) and 76% say they use Facebook.
For the most part, it seems that millennials are more interested in taking pictures of things or themselves and sharing them on social media sites that are built specifically for those things, like Snapchat and Instagram. Or, they generally also intend to have social lives and use Facebook to chat and hang out with friends.
But still, it is rather remarkable that out of the 20% of millennials who made up all US tweets (in the study), only 4% were political tweets.
Regardless, it’s pretty clear that the vast majority of political tweets are from a very small number of people. And yet, the media acts as though it’s a reflection of the rest of the country and as though they matter.
For example, The Independent recently had an article about Chris Pratt titled: “Chris Pratt called sexist after mocking wife’s cooking: ‘Proud of my darling for trying to cook tonight.’” An article where Pratt lightly mocked his wife’s cooking for having burnt a bagel to a crisp.
And while this is indeed not about politics, it does reflect what the media often does with Twitter engagement. What do I mean? Well, while the article makes it sound like a lot of people on social media decried Pratt as sexist, only 6 people actually did that or something of that caliber, none of whom have anywhere close to a thousand followers. They were just random accounts with a few hundred followers at best and far from people anyone would really pay attention to.
Had it been a fellow actor or a semi-prominent journalist, that may have been a different story. But 6 people no one knows say the guy is sexist and The Independent writes a whole article about it? Even the tweets that criticized Pratt had no more than THREE LIKES MAX! My average political tweet tends to have a bigger response than that AND I’M EVERY BIT THE SOCIAL MEDIA NOBODY THESE PEOPLE ARE!
So the next time some fake news media site says that “Twitter blew up today when such and such said this”, ignore it because it’s far from an accurate descriptor of how the American people feel. And while I do sometimes talk about the reaction someone got on Twitter, like when Ben Rhodes trashed the NBA for kowtowing to China, it’s to point out a surprising moment when even (some) Leftists would not defend such actions.
But the next time the media tries to convince you that Trump or someone else they hate said or did something they think is dumb and adds that “Twitter blew up” about it, remember that it does not reflect the overall sentiment of Americans.
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”
Is there a more useless politician than Mitt Romney? Not only is he a massive snake in the Republican Party, but he also apparently is so sensitive to criticism and maintaining his image that he had a burner account for years, with tweets all either defending something he was doing, praising himself, or attacking Trump (which he does personally anyway).
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) recently revealed that he had a “lurker” Twitter account to The Atlantic McKay Coppins, though he did not disclose what the name of the account actually was. However, he gave them enough information about the account for them to discover what it was. His now-not-so-secret burner account is called Pierre Delecto, with the handle “@qaws9876”. Not sure what that’s supposed to mean, but when asked about it, Romney confirmed it by saying “C’est moi”, which is French for “it’s me.”
Of course, scorn and ridicule are some of what Romney received as a result. The guy is too worried about his own image, wherein he faults Donald Trump for tweeting too much and engaging in pointless Twitter debates with people, and yet does the exact same thing with a burner account.
Now, the reason I call it a “burner” account is because this is sometimes used when it comes to other celebrities, namely sports figures, when they use accounts other than their official ones to defend themselves or to attack someone else. People like former Philadelphia 76ers General Manager Bryan Colangelo and Brooklyn Nets superstar forward Kevin Durant have all been found to have used burner accounts for various reasons, though often for some of the same reasons as Romney does.
However, there is a difference between a sports star using a burner account and a 72-YEAR-OLD SITTING UNITED STATES SENATOR USING A BURNER ACCOUNT. Dumb as it may have been, Durant’s burner accounts (yes, plural) aren’t really a big deal because the guy is considerably younger and more naïve. But what excuse does Romney have?
The guy is less than a year younger than Trump and yet has the mental capacity of a child. And I honestly mean that. You have to be fundamentally dumb to side with the people and party who destroyed you in 2012 just because you have a personal vendetta against the Republican president.
You have to be stupid to think you can honestly primary Donald Trump and actually expect to win. Anthony Scaramucci has said that he believes Trump “will not be the [Republican] nominee come November.” This guy also has a personal vendetta against Trump for having fired him (and likely other reasons) but he’s an idiot for actually expecting this.
Similarly, with reports saying Romney was asking other Republicans about primarying Trump, he falls into a similar category of stupidity as a result.
But it’s not just stupidity; it’s hypocrisy. Many people have attacked Trump for being on Twitter so much and for engaging in pointless and needless arguments with other people, whether they be politicians or even celebrities who hate his guts. Romney is one of them, but he’s apparently been doing this LONG BEFORE Trump even showed up.
“Pierre Delecto”’s Twitter account was created in July of 2011, only one month after Romney announced he would be running for president.
Among Pierre’s tweets, at least recently, we find tweets replying to supposed conservative journalist Jennifer Rubin saying Romney is spineless because he won’t confront Trump by replying: “Jennifer, you need to take a breath. Maybe you can then acknowledge the people who agree with you in large measure even if not in every measure.”
In other words, he’s telling her: “Hey, don’t be mean to me because we are on the same side on this issue.” Only he’s too scared to use his actual account to say that because he has an image of a morally and intellectually superior political prince who finds such confrontation to be beneath someone of his stature.
He’s a fool and he doesn’t even know it.
And people certainly aren’t defending him for this either. Even former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said having a fake Twitter account for this reason is “the work of kids, cowards, couch potatoes and perverts like Carlos Danger.”
I wholeheartedly agree. Romney is like a 14-year-old girl. He won’t directly fight with someone outright, but will talk trash about them in secret or behind their backs, trying to ruin the reputations of the people they hate. Teenage girls can be vindictive like that (not that I would personally know, being a guy) and that’s what Romney is acting like. He has the mind of a child.
He doesn’t have the spine to directly stand up to anyone or do much to defend himself, so he sets up fake Twitter accounts to do it in total obscurity. Unfortunately, he made Pierre’s account private, but I wish I could’ve seen what he said when Harry Reid said he put his dog on top of his car during a road-trip or when he was accused of not caring about an employee’s wife dying of cancer or when the whole “binders full of women” fiasco occurred.
The guy is a total coward and is the face of the Republican Never Trump movement. I’d say it’s a great fit.
“Terrors frighten him on every side, and chase him at his heels.”
If you know me, you know I am a staunch conservative. Generally speaking, I would like to keep the government away from almost all matters of life. However, given the recent bans of “dangerous” people by social media giants Facebook and Instagram (which is owned by Facebook), I feel it is necessary to take action against tech giants that routinely violate people’s free speech rights.
In case you were not made aware, last week, Facebook and Instagram banned people like Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson (who works for Alex Jones’ InfoWars), Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopolous and Louis Farrakhan among others. The reason Facebook gives is the following: “We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology.”
But there are a multitude of problems with this. First, ONLY ONE OF THESE PEOPLE ENGAGES IN AND PROMOTES HATE! Louis Farrakhan is a disgusting anti-Semite who absolutely deserves scorn. And if he promotes violence against the Jews (which he might, I don’t tend to pay much attention to a disgusting animal such as himself), then he does deserve a ban. However, hate itself is not even properly defined by Facebook. Anything THEY consider hate, they ban. If you post about the fact that transgender people are not actually the gender that they claim to be due to basic biology, you get banned. If you post about how Islam is a death cult, you get banned. If you take a picture with a gun, you could get banned. If you think differently from the Facebook overlords, you get banned.
I may think Alex Jones is a bit eccentric and peddles conspiracy theories, but he has every right to do so. Especially considering that Facebook would not dare ban Leftists who peddle conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia collusion. To this day, despite Mueller’s findings, Schiff claims to have evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. He continues to peddle such conspiracy theories, as do other prominent Democrats, but Facebook has absolutely no problem with that.
It’s utterly hypocritical that Facebook claims to have launched a campaign against fake news when their own feeds are filled with nothing but fake news. The “fake” news that they target are news and opinions delivered by “wrong-think” sources like InfoWars, Laura Loomer, etc.
The second problem I have here is the fact that you are not even allowed to share links from these sources. So it’s not just that the sources are silenced, YOU are silenced if you like them or agree with them. Which further leads more and more people to get sent to Facebook jail.
Now, let’s return to the overall point of this article and the crux of the title. I 100% believe Trump and his administration ought to do something about social media censorship and there are a number of reasons for this.
First, Trump largely won because of social media. One of the main points I would often make soon after Trump won to explain just how and why he won is the fact that he had social media on his side. Not Facebook and Twitter as companies, they were on Hillary’s side. But he had the advantage of being able to broadcast his own side of the story without relying on cable news networks to hopefully share his message and without relying on scheduled and timed rallies. If he was attacked by someone, he would immediately counter-attack. Trump benefited heavily by social media, so he should realize that censorship of conservatives is not simply a terrible thing on principle, but also a terrible thing for his own campaign and hopes for reelection.
Do I think he could get reelected without social media? Yes. But he’d only lose support without it, so he stands to gain far more by standing up and taking action against social media censorship of HIS OWN base and people. Because regardless of what I think of Alex Jones as a political commentator, he is a strong Trump supporter. It’s largely Trump supporters who are being silenced so Trump has no reason not to take a stand on this issue.
Second, and this is for those who are either on the fence or believe government should not get involved in this, there would be no civil rights without government interference at the right time and in the right area.
One argument that could and likely would often be made back before the civil rights era was that government ought not get involved in the way a business operates in as far as who they choose to serve. That a business has the right to choose whom they serve. Personally, I believe that to be the case most, but not all the time.
For example, take the Colorado cake shop case, where a cake shop was targeted relentlessly for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. In this instance, religious freedom was the reason given for refusing service to the gay customers at least for that particular request. It’s not like he refused to bake them a cake because they were gay – he refused to bake them a cake for a gay wedding, which he finds to be morally and religiously wrong.
But if he refused to give them any type of service because they were gay, I would have a problem with that, as that would be outright discrimination. Likewise, in the pre-civil rights era, businesses would often times refuse service to African Americans. That was discrimination and it was wrong.
So the argument that Facebook ought to be allowed to ban whomever they want from their platforms regardless of the reason falls more in line of businesses as a whole being able to refuse service to anyone for any given reason, even for racist ones.
Again, generally speaking, I do not want the government to get involved in things. However, I do not really see another option here.
Now, people could still say “just let the free market do its thing”. And generally, I would agree, but big tech is a monopoly: there is no free market here. Where there is no competition, there is no possibility for a free market. Facebook has a toll booth in their enterprise. And while there are other social media platforms like Twitter, Snapchat, etc., they all fall in line with the Left. The Left has a monopoly on social media. And while they do also have a monopoly on regular media like CNN and Fox News, people largely don’t interact with those things as often as they do with social media platforms. People don’t have presumed and advertised free speech rights on CNN and Fox News, but they do on social media. And it’s those rights that are being violated for people who disagree with the Left.
And as far as the argument of “setting a bad precedent” goes, I will simply say the same thing I said about Trump’s National Emergency declaration about the border: the Left will do whatever they want with what power they have.
If Trump did not declare a National Emergency, the Left would still have taken similar measures to get away with whatever they wanted. How do I know this? DACA WAS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND NO ONE BATTED AN EYE LID!
Meanwhile, if Trump wants to get rid of the unconstitutional DACA in the same manner, he is somehow blocked by Leftist activist judges. The Left plays by their own rules. If we don’t do the same, we will lose.
Just take a look at how they’ve treated the past two Republican presidents upon simply being elected: they claimed Trump colluded with Russia and claimed the Supreme Court unjustly declared Bush the winner of the 2000 election.
Or look at how they treated the first Republican President ever, Abraham Lincoln: they literally SECEDED FROM THE UNION UPON HIS ELECTION VICTORY!
The Left believes they can play by their own rules. Rush Limbaugh often points out how the word “hypocrite” does not stick to them. This is the reason why. They play by their own rules. If we don’t start playing by similar rules, if we don’t start fighting fire with fire, we will lose.
Now, that doesn't mean we turn into socialists ourselves. That doesn’t mean we use the government as a political weapon like the Left does for absolutely everything. On the contrary, we ought to do what the Founding Fathers intended for the government: to be a protector of rights and liberty. The Constitution is a set of rules for the government, yes, but it’s the government that usually follows it and protects it. It is the government’s duty to protect the people, not rule their lives, as Ronald Reagan once said. Part of that protection is the protection of our rights and liberty. The military, a government agent, already does that fantastically well against foreign enemies because we understand that that’s what the government ought to do.
We can’t go back to the old days when one can simply start a competing business, a better one, and strongly compete against the established giants. Multiple small business laws heavily restrict small businesses and they would likely eventually be bought out by the giants, thus eliminating all competition.
The free market option is simply not available when the government makes it so hard for small businesses to grow and thrive. And if no action is taken at all by the government against social media censorship, it will only get worse and worse.
Keep in mind that Trump won’t be in the White House forever. Even if he wins reelection, he will then have only 4 years left. After that, there is good chance a Democrat wins the White House, at which point things will be far worse.
Either social media censorship is taken care of now, or it never will be. At which point, one might as well kiss the rest of their freedoms goodbye, because if you think this ends with people like Alex Jones, you do not truly know the Left. They want ALL OF US silenced. Any opposing dissent is seen as hate in their eyes. If they can ban Alex Jones, PJW, Laura Loomer, etc., they will move on to others like Sean Hannity, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Rush and every other major conservative voice.
After that, comes complete and total Leftist victory in this world. I fully understand this is the devil's world, and I know full-well that God has the ultimate victory, but I cannot stand to see the Left get away with this sort of injustice. The Founding Fathers were Christians who believed God is the ultimate victor, but they still fought against the tyranny and injustice of King George III. Why would we not do the same?
1 John 5:19
“We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...