Published By
Created On
17 Apr 2021 16:48:51 UTC
Transaction ID
Cost
Safe for Work
Free
Yes
ASTONISHING: Harvard Genius Reads Trump’s Mind to Explain Twitter Executive Order
Trump signed an executive order focused on keeping social media companies bias in check if they wish to legally remain a designated "platform". This video explores the mainstream media/academia's "explanation" for it while at the same time Anthony Galli injected his own explanation. You, the viewer, can decide who is closer to the truth.
(trump is doing this for zuckerberg, Explain Trump Twitter Executive Order, explain donald president trump twitter executive order, donald trump twitter executive order, donald trump executive order today, donald trump signs executive order explained, donald trump social media executive order explained)
The Atlantic article: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/05/trumps-executive-order-isnt-about-twitter/612349/
In order to learn about the executive order I googled "Trump Twitter Executive Order."
This is what came up…
Every single story was written by a liberal publication. I then clicked on the first story by The Atlantic, which was written by somebody called Zeynep Tufekci. She's an associate professor at the University of North Carolina, and a faculty associate at Harvard. Impressive credentials! What did she have to say?
The Atlantic article starts with a strong emotional appeal…
As the United States enters a pandemic summer, with more than 100,000 Americans already dead, and as tear gas engulfed Minneapolis last night, following protests after yet another killing of a black man by a police officer, the president tweeted that the "shooting starts" when the "looting starts".
The tweet echoed a historic line uttered by a police chief in Miami in 1967 during the civil-rights unrest that was also widely condemned at the time.[1]
You’re free to think the president PURPOSELY echoed the words of a Miami police chief from 1967, but if Professor Tufekci was trying to be honest she would've at least included the president's defense so the reader could have been armed with the facts to reach their own conclusion…
If you despise Trump or are familiar with Civil Rights unrest in 1967 Miami then I can see why you'd assume his motives were evil/racist/glorifying-violence, but if you are more middle of the road, such as myself, then I honestly thought on first read that the president was, as he later claimed, just making a factual observation that when looting starts, shooting usually follows.
The Atlantic article continued…
Twitter hid that tweet behind a message saying that it was "glorifying violence" - a violation of the site's terms of service - though the users could still choose to view it by clicking through.[2]
Don’t you think “glorifying violence” is such a vague violation that a moderator could fit their political bias into it?
Oh, didn’t like The Joker movie. B
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBJ8gie5ag8
(trump is doing this for zuckerberg, Explain Trump Twitter Executive Order, explain donald president trump twitter executive order, donald trump twitter executive order, donald trump executive order today, donald trump signs executive order explained, donald trump social media executive order explained)
The Atlantic article: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/05/trumps-executive-order-isnt-about-twitter/612349/
In order to learn about the executive order I googled "Trump Twitter Executive Order."
This is what came up…
Every single story was written by a liberal publication. I then clicked on the first story by The Atlantic, which was written by somebody called Zeynep Tufekci. She's an associate professor at the University of North Carolina, and a faculty associate at Harvard. Impressive credentials! What did she have to say?
The Atlantic article starts with a strong emotional appeal…
As the United States enters a pandemic summer, with more than 100,000 Americans already dead, and as tear gas engulfed Minneapolis last night, following protests after yet another killing of a black man by a police officer, the president tweeted that the "shooting starts" when the "looting starts".
The tweet echoed a historic line uttered by a police chief in Miami in 1967 during the civil-rights unrest that was also widely condemned at the time.[1]
You’re free to think the president PURPOSELY echoed the words of a Miami police chief from 1967, but if Professor Tufekci was trying to be honest she would've at least included the president's defense so the reader could have been armed with the facts to reach their own conclusion…
If you despise Trump or are familiar with Civil Rights unrest in 1967 Miami then I can see why you'd assume his motives were evil/racist/glorifying-violence, but if you are more middle of the road, such as myself, then I honestly thought on first read that the president was, as he later claimed, just making a factual observation that when looting starts, shooting usually follows.
The Atlantic article continued…
Twitter hid that tweet behind a message saying that it was "glorifying violence" - a violation of the site's terms of service - though the users could still choose to view it by clicking through.[2]
Don’t you think “glorifying violence” is such a vague violation that a moderator could fit their political bias into it?
Oh, didn’t like The Joker movie. B
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBJ8gie5ag8
Author
Content Type
Unspecified
video/mp4
Language
English
More from the publisher
Controlling
VIDEO
THE N
the-next-pandemic-is-coming!-what-to-do
How the US should respond to a future pandemic in order to save lives and preserve liberty. No plan is perfect, but it's better than the status quo and better than any other plan I've heard put forth thus far.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzcTFD34YRw
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
THE D
the-descent-of-american-culture-yg-in
There’s a part of me that thinks "YG - In the Dark" is dope. My first and only car was a Ford Focus so I chuckled at the line… "Loaded. Losing my Focus. Need a b*tch and a Benz. Not a Ford Focus."
But there’s another part of me that thinks the song’s misogynistic, materialistic, hedonistic, and juvenile.
I like my b*tches dark. I hit them at the park when it’s dark.
I guess my view is that this sort of content should be age-restricted on YouTube to reduce its mainstream appeal.
But not only does Big Tech not censor such music for children, but recently Apple used it for its jingle in their new iPhone commercial.
I think it’s a clever ad and at least they cut out the more offensive lines, but it’s because they used the song that it has gained new popularity among impressionable teenagers.
Pop up on ya b*tch like peek a boo.
The culture has moved so far to the left that it’s easy to be considered a social conservative nowadays because you can basically be against killing an 8-month old baby or in favor of giving your daughter a doll and BOOM you’re a conservative transphobic misogynist!
Face down, *ss up, back gotta be arched.
If Google, Apple, and Facebook censored profane songs on their platforms then creators would be financially incentivized to tone it down a bit or create a more censored alternative version for children.
Here’s my attempt at rewriting the song for the kids:
YG: Loaded. Losing my Focus. Need a b*tch and a Benz. Not a Ford Focus.
AG: Loaded. Losing my Focus. Need a hitch and a Benz. Not a Ford Focus.
YG: I like my b*tches dark. I hit them at the park when it’s dark.
AG: I hate my ditches dark. I fall in them at the park when it’s dark.
YG: Face down, *ss up, back gotta be arched.
AG: Face down, pass up, test gotta be marked.
YG: Pop up on ya b*tch like peek a boo.
AG: Pop up on the rich like peek a boo.
YG: I do a b*tch harsh. Break her heart to a thousand parts.
AG: I teach a niche harsh. Make her smart in a thousand parts.
Or I suppose you could just omit the curse words, but some leftists might call me a hypocrite because, “What about free speech?”
For one, I’d argue it’s BECAUSE I believe in free speech that I support censoring profanity/vulgarity. I think vulgarity dumbs down our culture by superficializing our thinking, therefore, making it easier for the influence-industrial complex to censor complex thinking. In other words, “bread and circuses” is a distraction from tyranny, which is why Big Tech not only doesn’t censor such content, but actively promotes it while censoring more substantive content for wrongthink.
But more importantly, I’d argue society should treat children differently. What a radical notion?! In addition, age-restricting videos isn’t particu
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAym7DrOKNI
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
VIVEK
vivek-ramaswamy's-heterodox-policy
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcoI_jh5dl4
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
STOP
stop-blaming-sexism-for-elizabeth
Elizabeth Warren and the mainstream blamed “sexism” for playing a major role in her defeat…
“Sexism was a big factor in Warren’s loss — though it was far from the only one.” — Vox, Elizabeth Warren and the sexism factor, explained
A Yale professor in philosophy philosophized,
Jason Stanley, To repeat the obvious: there is no other explanation except for misogyny for what has happened to Senator Warren this year. Sadly, a proof of concept. Profoundly depressing.
Hmmmm as a side note, should taxpayers be forced to pay his salary so he can continue to indoctrinate America’s youth?
We got headlines like:
The Guardian: Elizabeth Warren endured sexism at every step of her campaign
The Nation: Sexism Sank Elizabeth Warren
And then after Elizabeth Warren’s concession speech, NBC reported,
Warren was responding to a question about what her message would be to women voters who were "left with two white men to decide between" in the election.
"That's going to be hard," she said.
Warren also described the role she felt sexism played in her lack of success during the primaries — and the double standard she said existed for women who tried to raise awareness about it.
To claim “sexism” was a big part of Elizabeth Warren’s loss is factually wrong and the sadder truth is, WARREN KNOWS IT.
Facts are stubborn things: we hear OVER and OVER and OVER again about how women LIKE THE FACT she’s a woman. There are a lot of women who voted for her purely because she is a woman. Sexism, perhaps?
The Hillary Clinton campaign, which was a data mining machine decided of all the possible slogans in the world to go with they went with, “I’m with her!” precisely because in the 21st century being a woman is a political asset!
Joe Biden has made clear he has a “list of women” for his VP choice. He has a list of women because a woman will INCREASE his chances of becoming president. In other words, if you can’t be a woman then surround yourself with them (Jill Biden is always standing next to her husband during his speeches and playing linebacker).
And let’s not forget that less than 4 years ago Hillary Clinton did what Elizabeth Warren could not… win the Democratic nomination… as a woman!
Elizabeth Warren wouldn’t have begun all her speeches with…
“My name is Elizabeth Warren and I’m the woman whose going to beat Donald Trump!” {always earned a loud applause}
(elizabeth warren drops out due to sexism, sexism warren defeat, elizabeth warren drops out sexism, warren sexism defeat, elizabeth warren sexism defeat)
… if she thought being a woman was a political liability.
Or after her speeches, kneel down and pinky promise to little girls, “I’m running for president, because that’s what girls do,”
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Ahl7GwyC8
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
WHAT
what-makes-america-great-•-exploring
Slavery, Indian Removal Act, child labor, sexism, Japanese internment camps, segregation, Vietnam War, Watergate, etc…
How can someone possibly argue that the United States was ever “great”?!
And then on top of that the United States has the highest prison rates, suffers from de facto segregation, lags behind the developed world in education, and is trillions of dollars in debt!
How can anyone argue that America is “great”?!
What does it even mean to be “great”?
Is a “great” nation one that has the most money or happiest people or longest lifespans or biggest military or smallest CO2 footprint?
For me, the greatest nations are those that do the most amount of good for the most amount of people.
Therefore let’s turn our attention to humanity as a whole.
Statistically humanity has never been more free, healthy, happy, safe, and rich. Fact. This means whenever you watch the news reporting on North Korea, mass shootings, protests, or ebola one must put it into context.
This then begs the question, what one nation is most responsible for the way the world is today?
And again the answer is clear: The United States of America.
Without the United States, the world with all its problems, would be drastically different and likely worse.
As humans we have remarkably short-memories. If George W. Bush walked into a cafe I’m sure a lot of people would confuse him with Will Ferrell.
And as much as we overlook the past we drastically overestimate the durability of freedom and the present moment.
Most humans over the course of history were in one form or another — slaves. Freedom is an aberration.
And society may very well return to this historical norm sooner than we think if we don’t pay proper respect to the values that got us here.
And as terrible as we are at remembering the past, we are also terrible at predicting the future. The very week Donald Trump was elected the most powerful man in the world experts were giving him nearly a 0% chance of winning.
By gaining an appreciation for the fragility of freedom and our fortunate for this era we should therefore gain an appreciation for the greatness of the United States.
Why is it so important to celebrate the United States on this Independence Day?
It’s because the U.S. is fundamentally a collection of ideas.
Ideas such as separation of powers, representative democracy, constitutionalism, federalism, human rights, and equality before the law (at least in theory).
Ideas that we take for granted because most of the world has adopted them too, but ideas are only as useful as the number of humans willing to adopt them.
There are a lot of young people in particular who wish to burn the U.S. flag and constitution because they see these things as symbols of racism and
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVBtErmYefI
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
RONAL
ronald-reagan's-daughter-patti-davis
This video explores what President Trump said at a recent Michigan rally about the late congressman Dingell and how he supposedly provided "A+ treatment".
Trump said at a recent Michigan rally…
"Debbie Dingell, that's a real beauty…. so she calls me up like 8 months ago. Her husband was here a long time. But I didn’t give him the B treatment. I didn’t give him the C or the D. I could have! I gave him the A+ treatment. Takedown the flags!
“Why are you taking them down, sir?”
For ex-congressman Dingell!
“Oh, okay.”
Do this! Do that! Rotunda! Everything! I gave him everything! I didn’t want anything for it. I don’t need anything for anything.
She calls me up, “[groveling voice] It’s the nicest thing that’s ever happened. Thank you so much. John would be so thrilled. He’s looking down he’d be so thrilled. Thank you so much, sir.”
I said, “That’s okay don’t worry about it.”
Maybe, he’s looking up. I don’t know. {audience reacts with a mixture of laughs, whistles, and audible groans} Maybe. Maybe. But let’s assume he’s looking down!
But I gave him A+! Not A! Not B+! I gave him the A+.
She calls me, “Ohhh ahhh ohh”… I won’t go into the conversation because it’s not fair to do that."
To which Debbie Dingle responded,
Mr. President, let’s set politics aside. My husband earned all his accolades after a lifetime of service. I’m preparing for the first holiday season without the man I love. You brought me down in a way you can never imagine and your hurtful words just made my healing much harder.
Ronald Reagan’s daughter then jumped into the mix,
“[Trump] knows full well the impact of attacking people so publicly. Maybe some of those in his audience on Wednesday finally began to perceive that his cruelty is limitless, his sense of decency nonexistent.”
As a conservative, this single clip of Donald Trump highlights several of my problems with his presidential style: reactive, dishonest, indecent, egotistical, and victim-playing.
Trump is not an active visionary in the mode of Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan.
Trump is a reactive transactionalist.
If we were going to give Trump the benefit-of-the-doubt we could say that at the time maybe Trump didn’t want anything from Dingle for providing her deceased husband “A+ treatment”, but the fact that he threw his “generosity” in her face for doing something he disliked means that he, in fact, wanted at least some degree of loyalty in return.
And Trump says he provided “A+ treatment”, but what did he have to lose by using taxpayer dollars to fund a funeral service?
John Dingell holds the record for the longest-ever serving Congressman in American history, representing Michigan for more than 59 year
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xphpsis36MY
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
AM I
am-i-sacrificing-enough
I often tell myself, "I'm not sacrificing enough!"
I don't want to fail because I didn't sacrifice.
In many ways I'm living my dream, but I feel guilty about it.
I feel like Donald Trump when he turned to his daughter as they were walking by a homeless man and said, "I have less money in the bank than him" after a tough economic downturn.
A homeless person makes more money than me because I have no income, which means I should sacrifice more.
If my income accurately reflected my living situation than I too would be on the streets.
ARE YOU SACRIFICING ENOUGH?
I saved enough money to forgo that nightmare scenario, but nonetheless the clock is ticking.
SACRIFICE! SACRIFICE! SACRIFICE!
I could live in a better apartment with A.C. Buy new shoes since my current ones have holes in them. But I rather sacrifice as much as I can so that when I do taste success it will actually be success instead of fake success.
I'm going to see the new Star Wars movie now. I'll probably kick myself after-the-fact for not sacrificing, but nonetheless a boy has to have some fun?
Are you sacrificing enough to achieve your goals?
FULL ARTICLE
http://www.anthonygalli.com/am-i-sacrificing-enough
LIVE TO CHALLENGE
http://www.livetochallenge.com/
BLOG
http://www.anthonygalli.com/
FACEBOOK
http://www.facebook.com/livetochallenge
http://www.facebook.com/rallywithgalli
INSTAGRAM
http://www.instagram.com/livetochallenge
http://www.instagram.com/rallywithgalli
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO3czPF5rdo
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
MASS
mass-shootings-what-the-media-doesn't
This video is about how the media fuels mass shootings through sensationalism. We explore the motives of the media and the psychology of the killer as well as potential solutions to the problem.
WHAT THE MEDIA DOESN'T SAY ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS
The Cost of a Good Story.
Since the 1980s we’ve seen a rapid increase in the amount of mass shootings in the United States.
And your question is why?
Is it guns?
Well, obviously not. Guns ownership has always been ubiquitous in the United States.
It’s not like all of a sudden a massive crate of guns was dropped on the country during the 1980s.
If anything the opposite is true where in 1986 Ronald Reagan passed a fully automatic rifle ban and since then cities and states have passed more and more gun laws.
And that’s not to say there aren’t pros and cons to gun legislation, but when it comes to mass shootings it’s absolutely clear that guns are not the core cause of their increasing frequency.
This is kind of awkward, but the core cause is you.
What has changed since the 1980s is where there use to only be a handful of major news networks, nowadays due to the internet, there is an infinite amount of news networks.
And whereas back in the day news networks succeeded by appealing to the broadest amount of people, which meant not being too controversial, nowadays media companies succeed by appealing to a niche market and being extremely controversial to rise above the noise.
This is why news reports are increasingly sensationalized, dramatic, louder, angrier, entertaining, hyperbolic, less substantive, and more detached from reality.
The reality is that the world, statistically speaking, has never been more safe, rich, and free!
My hope is that we will be more intentional with how we absorb our news because what gets attention gets power. Stop the cycle of violence.
Donald Trump is a prime example of that. Whether you love em or hate em, he is President of the United States, not despite the negative media coverage he received, but because of it. If the media was more substantive than sensational then he wouldn’t have gotten past the republican primary, but I don’t blame the media. The media is like any other business. It gives it customers what it wants. You wanted stories about Donald Trump and now you will get many more stories about Donald Trump for years to come.
And mass shooters are another example.
This is how it plays out…
Mass shooters want fame.
“We find that a cross-cutting trait among many profiles of mass shooters is desire for fame. This quest for fame among mass shooters skyrocketed since the mid-1990s in correspondence to the emergence of widespread 24-hour news coverage on cable news programs.” — Dr. Johnston, Author of Mass Shootings and the Media Conta
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4QXNyX1PH4
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
HOUSE
house-democrats-demand-facebook,-twitter
Script
Hi, I'm Anthony Galli and Trump recently shared an edited video of Nancy Pelosi ripping up the State of the Union address…
Pelosi's deputy chief of staff then responded, “The latest fake video of Speaker Pelosi is deliberately designed to mislead and lie to the American people, and every day that these platforms refuse to take it down is another reminder that they care more about their shareholders’ interests than the public’s interests.”
(democrats censor donald trump twitter)
House Democrats also took up the torch to shut down free speech...
“Twitter must take this misleading video about Speaker Pelosi down now,” he continued, “Falsity has never been a part of our 1st Amendment tradition.”
But ironically Congressman Khanna is making a factually false statement. All he has to do is read up on how the newspaper industry operated during the Revolutionary era or the Yellow Journalism era. And then to my surprise Facebook responded to Hammill,
"Sorry, are you suggesting the President didn’t make those remarks and the Speaker didn’t rip the speech?”
"What planet are you living on? This is deceptively altered. Take it down.”
But regardless of your party affiliation, all freedom lovers should STAUNCHLY stand against the house democrats here. I mean have they ever watched an episode of Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Bill Maher, etc? These guys are constantly doctoring videos for humorous or dramatic effect…
(democrats censor donald trump twitter)
So as you could see those recent videos CLEARLY meet the house democrat’s criteria of being deceptively edited and misleading so why are they not demanding their removal too?
So do we really want the selective enforcement of censorship rules based upon who is doing the demanding? Do I need to be a government official to warrant a response from Facebook and Twitter?
The underlying attitude of the people’s representatives seems to be that the people are too stup*d to realize the video was altered, but does anyone seriously think Nancy Pelosi was ripping up the speech after every story? And if somehow you thought it was real then shouldn’t your alarm bells have gone off enough to make you verify its truthfulness? And if not, then isn’t our real problem a lack of education instead of a lack of censorship?
If a sizable chunk of American voters were seriously that naive to believe it’s real, which I don’t buy, then maybe we shouldn’t be putting a bandaid over the deeper problem, especially because by doing so the problem would get worse.
Now Facebook deserves praise for standing their ground, but I don’t love their logic either because it sounds like they’re suggesting that they would’ve taken it down if the “President didn’t make th
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDqMUM2cbWs
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4