2) sorry the scotus has upheld limits on campaign fin to a campaign. its not first violation. It would only be a crime, if it was done for a campaign…like for example if xiden campaign asked.
3) do they? i am referring to the ones by Missouri and La, where an fbi agent just testified they meet weekly with tweeter to discuss censoring information. there is literally an active thread on it on this website
4) don’t blame you, and yes i would image that would be embarrassing and if you had a campaign hurt it, you’d want that silenced…which in that case could be a crime if the in kind political campaign contribution wasn’t properly recorded or above what legally is a allow. We would to investigate something like that. Remember what happened to Michael Cohen?
It is not a crime to request Twitter not posting something. Not if I do it. Not if you do it. Not if Trump does it as president and not if Biden does it as part of a campaign.
Well pardon me if I don't keep up to date on every thread here.
Do you have a link or not?
Show me the law where it distinguishes being being in a campaign or not. So we we surrender our rights when we run for office?
So what? It's not illegal. Trump had every right to send the FBI there to make requests.
If you want me to comment further, I need a link.
It is not a crime to request Twitter not posting something. Not if I do it. Not if you do it. Not if Trump does it as president and not if Biden does it as part of a campaign.
Stop repeating the same BS over and over.
OMG. You are like a broken record who is creating posts in a vacuum.
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THE FBI MEET AND OR TO ASK TWITTER TO NOT PIST SOMETHING.
If you disagree then link the law.
Otherwise I a done going over this again and again.
No it is not. Colluding isn't even a crime lol. You have no idea what you are talking about.
People stop buying a product and it's price will crash. Gasoline doesn't have an unlimited lifetime, it degrades over time. They had to sell it cheap to move it.
A lockdown where people were not driving...so they weren't buying gas...so gas begain piling up with nobody to buy it. That is why the prices were so low. High supply, low demand.
"Gasoline prices dropped because crude oil prices have crashed recently. Demand declined as people around the world stay home to avoid spreading the coronavirus;..."
A lockdown where people were not driving...so they weren't buying gas...so gas begain piling up with nobody to buy it. That is why the prices were so low. High supply, low demand.
"Gasoline prices dropped because crude oil prices have crashed recently. Demand declined as people around the world stay home to avoid spreading the coronavirus;..."
Well pardon me if I don't keep up to date on every thread here.
Do you have a link or not?
Show me the law where it distinguishes being being in a campaign or not. So we we surrender our rights when we run for office?
So what? It's not illegal. Trump had every right to send the FBI there to make requests.
If you want me to comment further, I need a link.
It is not a crime to request Twitter not posting something. Not if I do it. Not if you do it. Not if Trump does it as president and not if Biden does it as part of a campaign.
Stop repeating the same BS over and over.
OMG. You are like a broken record who is creating posts in a vacuum.
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THE FBI MEET AND OR TO ASK TWITTER TO NOT PIST SOMETHING.
If you disagree then link the law.
Otherwise I a done going over this again and again.
No it is not. Colluding isn't even a crime lol. You have no idea what you are talking about.
No, i am on my phone…but it’s a 22 page thread on the Polltics forum that is active
are you going to continue to deny there are campaign finance laws? trump didn’t request hunter bidens story be censored…frankly tweeter was no fan of trump…they banned
i don’t like repeating myself, but you seem rather hard headed ans we continue in circles cause you continue to ignore reality
I have provided the State Actor Doctrine.
I never said it was a crime. Illegal acts don’t have to be crimes. When the Govt and State actors violate the constitution irs illegal…but not a crime
No, i am on my phone…but it’s a 22 page thread on the Polltics forum that is active
are you going to continue to deny there are campaign finance laws? trump didn’t request hunter bidens story be censored…frankly tweeter was no fan of trump…they banned
i don’t like repeating myself, but you seem rather hard headed ans we continue in circles cause you continue to ignore reality
I have provided the State Actor Doctrine.
I never said it was a crime. Illegal acts don’t have to be crimes. When the Govt and State actors violate the constitution irs illegal…but not a crime
are you going to continue to deny there are campaign finance laws? trump didn’t request hunter bidens story be censored…frankly tweeter was no fan of trump…they banned
Twitter is not a state actor even if your media outlets try to tell you it is.
The courts already decided that.
"Here, Rutenburg's allegation does not and cannot satisfy these two requirements. First, Rutenburg makes no allegation that Twitter exercised any state right or privilege to restrict her access to former President Trump's Tweets. Lugar instructs that the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights must be rooted in the exercise of a state's sovereign power. 457 U.S. at 940; see also Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2011) (analyzing a Section 1983 claim in terms of whether the deprivation was caused by the exercise of a right or privilege "created by the State"). Instead, Rutenburg points to a supposed delegation of authority from former President Trump to operate what she contends is a public forum. See Dkt. No. 2 ¶¶ 4, 57. At best, the amended complaint merely describes how Twitter using its own technical means reportedly disabled, removed, and otherwise restricted former President Trump's Tweets and accounts. See id. ¶¶ 3, 28, 30, 32, 33, 37, 40, 42, 44, 47. None of this has any connection with the exercise of authority by a sovereign state. Thus, the amended complaint fails to allege any conduct with a nexus to a state privilege or power.
Second, Rutenburg's allegations do not demonstrate that Twitter is an entity that may fairly be said to be a state actor. It is undisputed that Twitter is a private company. See Dkt. No. 2 ¶ 14 ("Twitter is a ubiquitous social media company."); Dkt. No. 17 at 2 ("Twitter is a private company."). Federal courts have uniformly rejected attempts to treat similar social media companies as state actors under Section 1983. See, e.g., Prager Univ. v. Google LLC"
I never said it was a crime. Illegal acts don’t have to be crimes. When the Govt and State actors violate the constitution irs illegal…but not a crime
Good for the thread. Does that absolve you from having to prove your contentions?
You are claiming facts not in evidence. I never denied their are campaign finance laws.
Twitter is not a state actor even if your media outlets try to tell you it is.
The courts already decided that.
"Here, Rutenburg's allegation does not and cannot satisfy these two requirements. First, Rutenburg makes no allegation that Twitter exercised any state right or privilege to restrict her access to former President Trump's Tweets. Lugar instructs that the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights must be rooted in the exercise of a state's sovereign power. 457 U.S. at 940; see also Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2011) (analyzing a Section 1983 claim in terms of whether the deprivation was caused by the exercise of a right or privilege "created by the State"). Instead, Rutenburg points to a supposed delegation of authority from former President Trump to operate what she contends is a public forum. See Dkt. No. 2 ¶¶ 4, 57. At best, the amended complaint merely describes how Twitter using its own technical means reportedly disabled, removed, and otherwise restricted former President Trump's Tweets and accounts. See id. ¶¶ 3, 28, 30, 32, 33, 37, 40, 42, 44, 47. None of this has any connection with the exercise of authority by a sovereign state. Thus, the amended complaint fails to allege any conduct with a nexus to a state privilege or power.
Second, Rutenburg's allegations do not demonstrate that Twitter is an entity that may fairly be said to be a state actor. It is undisputed that Twitter is a private company. See Dkt. No. 2 ¶ 14 ("Twitter is a ubiquitous social media company."); Dkt. No. 17 at 2 ("Twitter is a private company."). Federal courts have uniformly rejected attempts to treat similar social media companies as state actors under Section 1983. See, e.g., Prager Univ. v. Google LLC"
1) yes, i proved it and told you were to find it
2) you’ve certainly suggested they don’t exist and it’s perfectly legal for a campaign to get in kind campaign. benefits via censoring negative news that would hurt their campaign
3) normally they aren’t…no media outlet told me they were.
4) that case has nothing to do with the other acts being alleged. The state actor doctrine doesn’t require the entity to always be a state actor…
5) tucker? what? you are citing some case that has nothing to do with these allegations. that was a completely different action
6) of course it’s illegal for the state to violate people’s rights
…geez
You are so stupid I’m about to put you on Ignore.
The price of gasoline never went up under Trump, even during COVID.
The price skyrocketed under Biden when Zelensky mentioned Ukraine and Biden did not scold Zelensky.
1) yes, i proved it and told you were to find it
2) you’ve certainly suggested they don’t exist and it’s perfectly legal for a campaign to get in kind campaign. benefits via censoring negative news that would hurt their campaign
3) normally they aren’t…no media outlet told me they were.
4) that case has nothing to do with the other acts being alleged. The state actor doctrine doesn’t require the entity to always be a state actor…
5) tucker? what? you are citing some case that has nothing to do with these allegations. that was a completely different action
6) of course it’s illegal for the state to violate people’s rights
…geez
2) you’ve certainly suggested they don’t exist and it’s perfectly legal for a campaign to get in kind campaign. benefits via censoring negative news that would hurt their campaign
I never suggested it. As a matter of fact I have specifically said there are finance laws, I simply assert that telling Twitter to not post something does not violate them.
5) tucker? what? you are citing some case that has nothing to do with these allegations. that was a completely different action
6) of course it’s illegal for the state to violate people’s rights
…geez
