You may have noticed a distinct lack of return2ozma. This is due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith:

I’m sure there will be questions, let me see if I can address the most obvious ones:

  1. Can I still post negative stuff about Biden?

Absolutely! We have zero interest in running an echo chamber. However, if ALL you’re posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. You get out of the world what you put into it and all that.

  1. Why now?

Presumption of innocence. It may be my own fault, but I do try to think the best of people, and even though they were posting negative articles, they weren’t necessarily WRONG. Biden’s poll numbers, particularly in minority demographics ARE in the shitter. They are starting to get better, but he still has a hell of a hill to climb.

  1. Why a 30 day temp ban and not a permanent ban?

The articles return2ozma shared weren’t bad, faked, or from some wing-nut bias site like “beforeitsnews.com”, they were legitimate articles from established and respected news agencies, pointing out the valid problems Biden faces.

The problem was ONLY posting the negatives, over and over and then openly admitting that dishonest enagement is their purpose.

Had they all been bullshit articles? It would not have taken anywhere near this much time to lay the ban and it would have been permanent.

30 days seems enough time for them to re-think their strategery and come back to engage honestly.

tl;dr - https://youtu.be/C6BYzLIqKB8#t=7s

  • @btaf45
    link
    0
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    obama had a kill list .

    Yes. Osama Bin Laden.

    bill clinton signed the welfare reform and the crime bill and he signed off on moving the us embassy to jerusalem. under kennedy, we went into vietnam.

    WTF none of those have anything to do with democracy. Did you think “democracy” meant “do everything that you personally want”? Do you not get that you are not the only voter? LMFAO.

    that means having a war against democracy.

    How is going into Vietnam a war AGAINST democracy. Vietnam does not have a democracy, although South Vietnam had a democracy in 1975. And South Korea has a democracy today, because of the Korean War.

    • Victoria Antoinette
      link
      24 months ago

      none of those have anything to do with democracy

      they were all antidemocratic. none of them supported justice. the North Vietnamese wanted communism. denying that using the war machine is antidemocratic.

      • @btaf45
        link
        1
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        they were all antidemocratic. none of them supported justice.

        Dude you are using “antidemocratic” to mean “anything I do not like” instead of “not what the voters wanted”. It’s kind of rude to pretend that you are the only voter who matters.

        . the North Vietnamese wanted communism

        How would you know? There was no election. That is like claiming the Italians wanted Fascism. And the reason for the war was to defend that other country of South Vietnam which definitely did not want communism.

        • Victoria Antoinette
          link
          14 months ago

          the supposed reason for the war was the gulf of tonkin, and the real motivation was dominoe theory. don’t lie.

          • @btaf45
            link
            1
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            So you now admit US involvement in the (2nd of 3) Vietnam wars was not to “spread democracy”.

            • Victoria Antoinette
              link
              14 months ago

              that was my position the whole time: democrats are lying about supporting democracy.

              • @btaf45
                link
                14 months ago

                And you’ve been wrong the whole time.

                  • @btaf45
                    link
                    14 months ago

                    You were wrong about many different things

        • Victoria Antoinette
          link
          14 months ago

          Dude you are using “antidemocratic” to mean

          something the majority did not choose.