• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Snowflake In Chief passes on Parler

Did you catch this part?

Under their proposal, Trump would receive 40% of Parler's gross revenues, and Parler "would ban anyone who spoke negatively about him," Wolff wrote.
Click to expand...

LOL no wonder Parler rejected it. Had it only been a request to censor the left, I'm sure they gladly would have complied.

Remember folks, the Trumpian right, they're all about "free speech" on social media haha.
 
While I wouldn't exactly call Parler's stand a solely principled one (it would have been marketing death to agree to political censorship), you do have to give it a bit of credit for refusing to bow to Trump.
 
woolfe9998 said:
LOL no wonder Parler rejected it. Had it only been a request to censor the left, I'm sure they gladly would have complied.

Remember folks, the Trumpian right, they're all about "free speech" on social media haha.
Click to expand...
They already do!

Need proof? Simply make an account on Parler, and post anything negative or derogatory about the GQP (any part of it or any associated members), or anything in a positive light about Biden or any Democrat.

Within the first day, if not within the hour, your post will be removed by a mod, and you'll be banned from the site.

Yep. Real bastion of "free speech". They're not interested in political debate, only controlling their firehose of fecal matter.
 
Commodus said:
While I wouldn't exactly call Parler's stand a solely principled one (it would have been marketing death to agree to political censorship), you do have to give it a bit of credit for refusing to bow to Trump.
Click to expand...
I mean it's principled insofar as they're committed to grifting as hard (if not harder) than il douche.
 
On the surface it is a pretty good deal provided the former President doesn’t pull an Oprah and do absolutely the minimum amount of work for the platform, like post once a season.
There is no doubt if the head deplorable was on Parler daily or weekly they would have 100 times the audience. 40% cut from the gross would probably still leave them in a better revenue spot than today.
The Former President knows his value and isn’t afraid to ask for compensation. Even down to the gross figure because that number can’t easily be fudged like the net number can be. This is one area where we all should learn from the former President.
 
IJTSSG said:
Evidently that's exactly what they wanted since they offered him the 40%, not the other way around.

Do you stupid fucks ever read anything but the headline?
Click to expand...

No, it was you who didn't read it carefully. Here is the full passage.

In an excerpt from "Donald Trump's January 6: The view from inside the Oval Office," published in New York Magazine on Monday, Wolff wrote that Trump's representatives approached Parler when Trump was in office, proposing that he join the platform once he left the White House.

Parler is a right-wing website that was popular with pro-Trump extremists around the time of the Capitol riots on January 6.

"They had floated a proposition that Trump, after he left office, become an active member of Parler, moving much of his social-media activity there from Twitter."

Under their proposal, Trump would receive 40% of Parler's gross revenues, and Parler "would ban anyone who spoke negatively about him," Wolff wrote.
Click to expand...

"They" in the second last paragraph and "their" in the last paragraph refers to "Trump's representatives," not Parler. I mean, it says "Under their proposal, Trump would receive 40% of Parler's gross revenues, and Parler "would ban anyone who spoke negatively about him," Wolff wrote.

Since we know that Parler at the very least refused to go along with the banning idea, it could only be Trump who made the entire proposal, not Parler.
 
woolfe9998 said:
No, it was you who didn't read it carefully. Here is the full passage.



"They" in the second last paragraph and "their" in the last paragraph refers to "Trump's representatives," not Parler. I mean, it says "Under their proposal, Trump would receive 40% of Parler's gross revenues, and Parler "would ban anyone who spoke negatively about him," Wolff wrote.

Since we know that Parler at the very least refused to go along with the banning idea, it could only be Trump who made the entire proposal, not Parler.
Click to expand...

So now we're talking about the "total package". Keep moving those goals posts.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tru...me..69i57.14146j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
 
IJTSSG said:
So now we're talking about the "total package". Keep moving those goals posts.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+parler+40%&oq=trump+parler+40%&aqs=chrome..69i57.14146j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...

1st
www.wired.com

On Section 230, It's Trump vs. Trump

The president is urging Congress to repeal a law that his own trade agreements commit the country to.
www.wired.com www.wired.com

2nd
www.theverge.com

Parler reportedly refused to ban Trump’s critics as part of discussions to bring him onboard

According to a new excerpt from an upcoming book
www.theverge.com www.theverge.com

3rd
HYPOCRISY times 100000000
 
woolfe9998 said:
"They" in the second last paragraph and "their" in the last paragraph refers to "Trump's representatives," not Parler. I mean, it says "Under their proposal, Trump would receive 40% of Parler's gross revenues, and Parler "would ban anyone who spoke negatively about him," Wolff wrote.

Since we know that Parler at the very least refused to go along with the banning idea, it could only be Trump who made the entire proposal, not Parler.
Click to expand...
The wording that the author (Kate Duffy) used in this most recent article certainly makes it sound as if the entire proposal was the Trump team's idea, and that they requested both items (the banning of oppositional voices, + the 40% gross revenues).

However...if you dig back 2 or 3 layers deep into the source articles (beyond the initial article linked above) and progression of the story, one of the first reports from the beginning of this year states that it was indeed Parler that made the offer of a 40% stake in the company, in order to bring Trump to their platform (with a 4-hour exclusivity window for posting daily content, etc.)

Either the "40%" changed in nature, or it was misunderstood or misworded in later references. You are likely correct about Trump wanting the revenue stream and not simply a % stake though.

I see where my own confusion came in, because that was how I initially took the meaning of the article's statement as well (and not differentiating the differences between a 40% stake and a 40% revenue stream).
 
Last edited:
Pohemi420 said:
The wording that the author (Kate Duffy) used in this most recent article certainly makes it sound as if the entire proposal was the Trump team's idea, and that they requested both items (the banning of oppositional voices, + the 40% net share).

However...if you dig back 2 or 3 layers deep into the source articles (beyond the initial article linked above) and progression of the story, one of the first reports from the beginning of this year states that it was indeed Parler that made the offer of a 40% profit share, in order to bring Trump to their platform (with a 4-hour exclusivity window for posting daily content, etc.)

I had to dig back in article dates/releases in order to find the reference, but yeah...it was Parler that initially made the offer back in january, it seems. It's possible, because of how it was worded by Duffy, that it was included as part of the proposal that Trump's lawyers sent to Parler, to ensure Parler wasn't going to "forget" what they had previously offered. /shrug

I see where the confusion came from, because that was how I initially took the meaning of the article's statement as well. Seems a bit misleading, and I think it's possible it's just how it was written.
Click to expand...
There is a massive difference between 40% of profits and 40% of gross revenues. Parler may have started by offering a share of profits but as someone who licenses his “brand” Trump doesn’t want profits but a cut of the base revenue stream. There are always gross revenues so he gets paid no matter what.
 
brycejones said:
There is a massive difference between 40% of profits and 40% of gross revenues. Parler may have started by offering a share of profits but as someone who licenses his “brand” Trump doesn’t want profits but a cut of the base revenue stream. There are always gross revenues so he gets paid no matter what.
Click to expand...
Yeah I had to re-read both again, but you're right in that Parler had offered a 40% stake in the company/app to be doled out to Trump over a 2 year period...Trump's team are the ones who asked for 40% of actual gross revenue stream, so definitely a slightly different beast.
 
But why would they be willing to offer 40% stake of their company? The orange turd forever tied to their company like a leech. Better that short term hit of 40% profits while he maintained active presence in posting and cut him off if he falls under certain level of reaction.
 
eelw said:
But why would they be willing to offer 40% stake of their company? The orange turd forever tied to their company like a leech. Better that short term hit of 40% profits while he maintained active presence in posting and cut him off if he falls under certain level of reaction.
Click to expand...

Look at their current revenue, I can’t imagine it being that much.
Now imagine if the former President was able to multiply their user count 100 fold.
Giving 40% away starts to look pretty good.
 
IJTSSG said:
Evidently that's exactly what they wanted since they offered him the 40%, not the other way around.

Do you stupid fucks ever read anything but the headline?
Click to expand...


Look who tore himself away from his gloryhole booth to amuse everyone by punching himself in the face.

We missed you RimJob. N0b0dy has been having a hell of time licking GQP ass all by himself, he'll be thrilled you're back. We all feel pretty bad for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top