Hillary excites liberal base, celebrates Twitter’s refusal of political ads

Two-time Democratic presidential loser Hillary Clinton is celebrating the decision by Twitter to not allow political ads of any kind on their website. This comes in the wake of Facebook receiving major pushback over their relatively lax fact-checking on advertisements run by politicians.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey composed a multi-tweet threat regarding the latest decision, explaining that “political message reach should be earned, not bought.”

We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons…?

— jack ??? (@jack) October 30, 2019

The responses to this announcement were universally positive from a largely liberal base, with blue checkmark accounts like Alyssa Milano chiming in to tell Jack how “proud” she was.

Hillary Clinton was more than happy to see the political reach of candidates squashed, as it is likely she still believes that Trump won the 2016 election as the result of Russian ad buys on Facebook.

This is the right thing to do for democracy in America and all over the world.

What say you, @Facebook? https://t.co/dRgipKHzUG

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 30, 2019

Prior to her celebratory tweet, she had posted another message bashing Facebook for allowing “false information in political advertisements.” Naturally, this boiling hot take received some backlash.

The reality is that political ads are usually arguably true and arguably false. So who gets to decide what’s true and what’s not becomes the key question. In this polarized atmosphere, whom would you trust to make the calls? https://t.co/QbCjpQXmKu

— Brit Hume (@brithume) October 30, 2019

I could have sworn you said false information was on the dark web.

What happened?

— Kambree Kawahine Koa (@KamVTV) October 30, 2019

Google/YouTube conspicuously absent from Hillary Clinton’s attacks on big tech ? https://t.co/lONwWirLDX

— Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) October 30, 2019

What I don’t understand is why is it okay for TV stations to run lying political attack ads back-to-back-to-back for over a decade and suddenly this interest in Zuckerberg. Bit of a double standard it seems.

— JUSTICE FOR ALL! (@MJ34Hig44) October 30, 2019

If you let something you see on Facebook determine who you vote for… you shouldn’t be voting.

— KeithTheTriple (@keiththetriple) October 30, 2019

Sort of like that dossier you paid for and put together? That kind of misleading information?

— Kevin McCullough (@KMCRadio) October 30, 2019

Oh please. If we’re going to disallow misinformation, then we’d have to throw out most of the rhetoric on race and gender.

— Oscar Emerson (@oscar_t_emerson) October 30, 2019

One particularly clever user suggested that the real reason behind the liberal celebration of this move is simple: Democrat presidential candidates don’t have the funds to run ads.

The swamp recently embarked on a new strategy for sowing confusion and distrust in 2020. They are pretending to attack their own asset Facebook for allowing “false information” which is really just anything pro-Trump because Democrats have no money this time around to buy ads! https://t.co/mmpxtXOrzI

— Joe M (@StormIsUponUs) October 30, 2019

It is unclear what an outright ban on political ads will mean to the 2020 presidential election, or if the impact will be felt by one party more than the other. What is known, though, is that Hillary Clinton still can’t get over the fact that she isn’t president, and she will blame that fact on everyone except herself.

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!