Try thi
Try this again.
Is there any evidence that Twitter's witholding of Hunter's dick-pics swayed the 2020 election?
Embarrassed his entire family........like Joe Biden says 'That's ma boy'.......

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Try thi
Try this again.
Is there any evidence that Twitter's witholding of Hunter's dick-pics swayed the 2020 election?
And how is that relative to election interference?Embarrassed his entire family........like Joe Biden says 'That's ma boy'.......![]()
Made his father stutter a lot on the campaign trail.And how is that relative to election interference?
Some of it, sure. I'll tell you what find me one single article or news item where any of the major outlets presented unverified information as true. Just one.
By the way, "Russian collusion" is one of my pet peeves. There has been plenty of evidence of the Trump campaign "colluding" with Russia. That has been established and confirmed, first by the Mueller report and then later by a congressional committee led by Ron Johnson. What there hasn't been is sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that that "collusion" rose to the level of "conspiracy to defraud. "
Collusion has no meaning in law, only in a dictionary. So whenever I hear someone say there wasn't any collusion, it just tells me the person saying it is misinformed or dishonest
so someone wanting to do this deserves being distanced from but the president, now actually doing it, is fine to support.It's just astounding that none of them ask questions about being
put in the position of trying to defend meeting with neo-nazis and terminating the Constitution.
You would think that cognitive dissonance has some limits.
It was squashed for an entire 2 days on Twitter. An action that prompted an apology. Specifically note the date, 2 weeks before the election.The "Russian Collusion" or "Trump is a Russian puppet" narrative was broadcast his entire Presidency. Rachael Maddow made a career with it for crying out loud. The fact that you and everyone on this site knows all about it is testament to that. The Hunter Laptop story was squashed before it ever got any scrutiny. They banned a newspaper from Twitter over it. If you're saying both stories were treated the same from a verification/vetting perspective, you have no credibility.
Can you please rephrase this? I have a hard time understanding your premise.so someone wanting to do this deserves being distanced from but the president, now actually doing it, is fine to support.
this is why we can't have nice things.
Here's the issue though. Did the media go to these lengths or any lengths for that matter to verify all the Russian collusion shit? The pee tape reporting etc. If they did that type of vetting of information that hurts political candidates they don't like, then people would accept their reasoning behind what went on with the Hunter laptop. Since they don't it appears and likely was purely a political decision on their part. Honestly if they admitted to that it would be less of an issue (at least for me). Just don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
if we must pull away from someone who said the constitution needs to be suspended or the like is wrong and we must distance ourselves from such a person -Can you please rephrase this? I have a hard time understanding your premise.
Thank you for clarifying. Now I would like you to be a bit more specific. In what way do you feel Biden is "suspending the constitution?"if we must pull away from someone who said the constitution needs to be suspended or the like is wrong and we must distance ourselves from such a person -
what do we do when someone is actually DOING it (vs talking about it above) as our current president is in fact, doing.
After the Russian disinformation campaign to get Donald Trump elected in 2016 the FBI began targeting such things.Made his father stutter a lot on the campaign trail.
The election interference issue is when the government (FBI) runs around telling everybody on social media some Russian disinformation will be coming out regarding Hunter Biden.
oh, telling twitter what to say and not to say is pretty huge, wouldn't you say? if you can find justification this, it only means we'll never find that common ground of right and wrong)Thank you for clarifying. Now I would like you to be a bit more specific. In what way do you feel Biden is "suspending the constitution?"
Nope. Only that they dont vet stories that cut the other way with this amount of ferocity. Did they vet the Steele dossier to determine whether it was true before reporting on it? Obviously not.Are you saying you don't believe CBS's findings from the laptop drive?
Hasn't the Biden admin done a number of things knowing they were in violation of the Constitution, even when the SCOTUS told them what they were doing was unconstitutional, but did them anyway basically to get their way until the issue made it's way though the courts? The eviction moratorium through the CDC is a classic example of this. That's not the admin saying they want to suspend the Constitution but knowingly violating it is worse isnt it?Thank you for clarifying. Now I would like you to be a bit more specific. In what way do you feel Biden is "suspending the constitution?"
oh, telling twitter what to say and not to say is pretty huge, wouldn't you say? if you can find justification this, it only means we'll never find that common ground of right and wrong)
i can keep going where he will do what he wants and let the courts tell him to stop it and then he appeals and keeps going.
circumventing congress to do things like cancel debt. how did a president get this ability to unilaterally go around congress and start writing laws from the exec branch?
and like i said - there are many counts out there of him ignoring the constitution so it will go to court and he can do it as long as he can get away with it.
or simply tell me that screaming the constitution should be suspended is worse than all this.
I would if that is what happened. Fortunately, it didn't. The White House REQUESTED from Twitter to refrain from posting dick picks from Hunter Biden. Requests that the Trump White House did too on occasion. And something that by the way also goes against Twitter's policies. The government routinely requests the holding of material by news outlets. Requesting being the operative word. If they would order it you might have a point but they didn't.oh, telling twitter what to say and not to say is pretty huge, wouldn't you say?
The president has the power the unilaterally go around congress using EO. Just like Congress has the capability of challenging those EO if they feel it encroaches on their perogatives. The Supreme Court can (and in this case probably will) call it unconstitutional, but it only will be a problem if the executive branch would ignore that decision. Checks and balances and all that. Otherwise your in the position that every time a president gets shot down by the Supreme Court he's trying to subvert the Constitution. Want to play a game who gets shot down more by the Supremes, Biden or Trump? I'm willing to give you odds.circumventing congress to do things like cancel debt. how did a president get this ability to unilaterally go around congress and start writing laws from the exec branch?
of which the gov has zero right to do. it breaks the first amendment.I would if that is what happened. Fortunately, it didn't. The White House REQUESTED from Twitter to refrain from posting dick picks from Hunter Biden. Requests that the Trump White House did too on occasion. And something that by the way also goes against Twitter's policies. The government routinely requests the holding of material by news outlets. Requesting being the operative word. If they would order it you might have a point but they didn't.
yea ok. didn't read.The president has the power the unilaterally go around congress using EO. Just like Congress has the capability of challenging those EO if they feel it encroaches on their perogatives. The Supreme Court can (and in this case probably will) call it unconstitutional, but it only will be a problem if the executive branch would ignore that decision. Checks and balances and all that. Otherwise your in the position that every time a president gets shot down by the Supreme Court he's trying to subvert the Constitution. Want to play a game who gets shot down more by the Supremes, Biden or Trump? I'm willing to give you odds.
And yes I will tell you that outright screaming you want the Constitution being suspended is worse. Biden at the very worst wants to test the limits of executive power. Trump simply states he doesn't accpet that there are limits on it. That is fundamentally different.
Hasn't the Biden admin done a number of things knowing they were in violation of the Constitution, even when the SCOTUS told them what they were doing was unconstitutional, but did them anyway basically to get their way until the issue made it's way though the courts? The eviction moratorium through the CDC is a classic example of this. That's not the admin saying they want to suspend the Constitution but knowingly violating it is worse isnt it?
The first amendment handles the government restricting speech by establishing laws. The government is free to request whatever they want.of which the gov has zero right to do. it breaks the first amendment.
i'll stop here cause frankly, you're excusing the actions of one so you can demonize the voice of the other.
yea ok. didn't read.
Yeah they allowed it to expire because it was going to expire soon but said it was clearly unconstitutional. Biden then tried to extend it after being told by the court that the action was unconstitutional.![]()
Supreme Court allows coronavirus eviction moratorium to remain in place | CNN Politics
A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request to block a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention order that prohibits landlords nationwide from evicting certain tenants who fail to pay rent amid the Covid-19 pandemic.edition.cnn.com
Nope. Only that they dont vet stories that cut the other way with this amount of ferocity. Did they vet the Steele dossier to determine whether it was true before reporting on it? Obviously not.