Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Post pandemic economic growth and with russian aggression YOU think gas under the former 1-term fuckup would be $1.70/GL????Are you retarded?
Did you expect gasoline for free?
A gallon would still have been around $1.70.
You are amazingly stupid.Of course they were low. We were in lockdown, people weren't buying gas and so the market had a glut.
You are familiar with supply and demand right?
1) geez there is a thread on this website discussing it and length and i literally just posted on it
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?
5) nothing? you mean besides agents admitting to the meetings? i never said there were threats. I agree it was likely a symbiotic relationship
No it is not. Colluding isn't even a crime lol. You have no idea what you are talking about.6) if the fbi collided with the tweeter to censor speech it was illegal…
From which University did you receive your law degree?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.
Completely and stupidity wrong.You are amazingly stupid.
A lockdown causes a scarcity of sales and prices to increase.
Did you graduate High School?!
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.You are amazingly stupid.
A lockdown causes a scarcity of sales and prices to increase.
Did you graduate High School?!
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;..."
No, i am on my phone…but it’s a 22 page thread on the Polltics forum that is activeWell 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.
Cats is an attorney.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
doesn’t seem to think like oneCats is an attorney.
Doesn’t seem to think at all.doesn’t seem to think like one
Posts a sycophant republic.Doesn’t seem to think at all.
Just an old fart Lib.
But they did go down because nobody was using gas.I drive to work everyday.
The prices didn’t have to go down because they never went up.
Do you ever leave your basement apartment?But they did go down because nobody was using gas.
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.
Ok. It's not illegal either.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
So if gas prices are the same for a few months and the price then drops...that doesn't mean the price dropped?Do you ever leave your basement apartment?
The price never went down because the price never went up.
1) yes, i proved it and told you were to find itGood 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"
Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal databasecasetext.com
Stop getting legal opinions from Tucker and zerohedge/gateway pundit.
Ok. It's not illegal either.
You are so stupid I’m about to put you on Ignore.So if gas prices are the same for a few months and the price then drops...that doesn't mean the price dropped?
Please help me out with you logic.
6) Yeah, but it took a long time to get to derek chauvin.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
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…
Since Twitter is not a state actor, turn it doesn't matter.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
