What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Twittergate aka The Twitter Files

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
36,790
Reaction score
14,904
Points
1,600
The first amendment handles the government restricting speech by establishing laws. The government is free to request whatever they want.

That's ok, if you are unwilling to read 2 paragraphs I will simply form a conclusion about your intellectual honesty.
then trump should be able to say what he wants w/o penalty. until you apply your standards evenly, im not sure you know what intellectual honestly is.
 

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
36,790
Reaction score
14,904
Points
1,600
The first amendment handles the government restricting speech by establishing laws. The government is free to request whatever they want.

That's ok, if you are unwilling to read 2 paragraphs I will simply form a conclusion about your intellectual honesty.
but answer me this - with all the intellectual honesty you say you have -

if it doesn't matter and they can request what they want, why was it done in hidden back channels? and if it wasn't real anyway (as 50+ agencies swore to) - then they weren't really hunter, were they? if not real, why care?

your move, chief. i see a bullshit excuse on the horizon but you may surprise me.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,522
Reaction score
2,085
Points
195
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.

"As he often does, Kavanaugh wrote to explain why he voted to allow the moratorium to remain in place. On the one hand, he said he agreed with the District Court that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a nationwide moratorium.

But, he said, because the CDC has said it will end the moratorium in a few weeks he would allow it to remain in place. He said the extra weeks will “allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds.”"

Do you even read your own links?


What's worse saying you want to suspend the Constitution or knowingly violating it?
Kavanaugh was free to side with the people wanting to end the moratorium. Which he subsequently did. Supreme Court Ends Biden’s Eviction Moratorium (Published 2021)

The government, however, is free to impose every rule it wants providing they adhere to the Supreme Court's decision on its constitutionality. They are however not obligated to take into consideration the likely ruling of a Supreme Court Justice before he actually made that specific ruling. And no citing in your opinion that you deem something needing an act of congress while at the same time acknowledging that there are other public interest counts as such.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,522
Reaction score
2,085
Points
195
then trump should be able to say what he wants w/o penalty. until you apply your standards evenly, im not sure you know what intellectual honestly is.
He can say whatever the fuck he wants. What he says should however be duly considered and not like you , blown off like it's not relevant. He at the moment is the presumptive nominee for the GOP.
 

Couchpotato

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
5,655
Reaction score
2,906
Points
938
Kavanaugh was free to side with the people wanting to end the moratorium. Which he subsequently did. Supreme Court Ends Biden’s Eviction Moratorium (Published 2021)

The government, however, is free to impose every rule it wants providing they adhere to the Supreme Court's decision on its constitutionality. They are however not obligated to take into consideration the likely ruling of a Supreme Court Justice before he actually made that specific ruling. And no citing in your opinion that you deem something needing an act of congress while at the same time acknowledging that there are other public interest counts as such.
He didnt because it was set to expire in 2 weeks. Are you saying the Administration didnt read the ruling to know that?
 

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
36,790
Reaction score
14,904
Points
1,600
He can say whatever the fuck he wants. What he says should however be duly considered and not like you , blown off like it's not relevant. He at the moment is the presumptive nominee for the GOP.
and i considered it. he SAID it.

but he didn't DO it.

you're out there saying what trump SAID is bad but what Biden is doing is proper.

yea, i got issues with that line of thought. the president these days simply has WAY TOO MUCH POWER - both sides. and it needs to be reigned in. but we can't do that while you excuse it cause, trump bad.

n shit.

and for the record, i thought it was a very stupid thing to say. so while you try to assign me approving of him saying it, you'd be wrong there also.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,522
Reaction score
2,085
Points
195
but answer me this - with all the intellectual honesty you say you have -

if it doesn't matter and they can request what they want, why was it done in hidden back channels? and if it wasn't real anyway (as 50+ agencies swore to) - then they weren't really hunter, were they? if not real, why care?

your move, chief. i see a bullshit excuse on the horizon but you may surprise me.
I wasn't aware that a request to hold back pictures of somebodies dick was in the public interest? Just goes to show we have different priorities in life. I don't particularly care about Hunter's shlong.
 

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
36,790
Reaction score
14,904
Points
1,600
I wasn't aware that a request to hold back pictures of somebodies dick was in the public interest? Just goes to show we have different priorities in life. I don't particularly care about Hunter's shlong.
it was so much more than that, regardless of how you try to trivialize it. take his schlong out of the picture - please.

you know there's so much more coming out about connections, payments, who the big guy is and so forth. and even if that is all it was - they can't tell people what to say or not say; 1st amendment violation you continue to trivialize and ignore.

but again, you and your "intellectual honesty" are flying high today.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,522
Reaction score
2,085
Points
195
He didnt because it was set to expire in 2 weeks. Are you saying the Administration didnt read the ruling to know that?
No, I'm saying he can't compel the government to not extend the mortarium after he ruled for it. His solo opinion is not legally binding. It takes a quorum to make it legally binding. The CDC extended, and it came up again before the Supreme Court, they ordered the mortarium to be lifted, and the government complied.

What you are saying is that because Kavanaugh signaled what his likely ruling would be if they extended. It somehow becomes an unlawful act to make the Supreme Court rule on the extension.

Just to make it a bit more practical. Kavanaugh in his original ruling signaled that he accepted that the Constitutionality of the order wasn't the only consideration. He acknowledged that there was a public health interest too. Lawyers defending the second extension could reasonably argue that that consideration was still in place. You are trying to claim that the government didn't have the right to make any such argument just because of what Kavanaugh said in the first case. This is not how the law works.
 
Last edited:

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
60,736
Reaction score
18,129
Points
2,180
Location
Exposing PoliticalChic as a fraud. Every day.
Bwahahahahahaha!!!

 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,522
Reaction score
2,085
Points
195
it was so much more than that, regardless of how you try to trivialize it. take his schlong out of the picture - please.

you know there's so much more coming out about connections, payments, who the big guy is and so forth. and even if that is all it was - they can't tell people what to say or not say; 1st amendment violation you continue to trivialize and ignore.

but again, you and your "intellectual honesty" are flying high today.
Nope, this entire "scandal" is about two things.
-White House requests to hold back Hunter Biden's dick picks. And no I will not take his shlong out of the picture since you guys are insisting that the White House is out of line when requesting them to be withheld.

-Secondly and unrelated to that is the internal deliberation on Twitter to suppress the link to the New York Posts Hunter Biden laptop story. Here no involvement from Biden is reported.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
36,790
Reaction score
14,904
Points
1,600
Nope, this entire "scandal" is about two things.
-White House requests to hold back Hunter Biden's dick picks. And no I will not take his shlong out of the picture since you guys are insisting that the White House is out of line when requesting them to be withheld.

-Secondly and unrelated to that is the internal deliberation on Twitter to suppress the link to the New York Posts Hunter Biden laptop story. Here no involvement from Biden is reported.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

fine. you sit here and play with hunters schlong.

just drop the whole "intellectual honesty" bullshit. it doesn't fit here.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,522
Reaction score
2,085
Points
195
fine. you sit here and play with hunters schlong.

just drop the whole "intellectual honesty" bullshit. it doesn't fit here.
Not in your case. I'm not the one trying to claim there's a huge Twitter scandal because they didn't post Hunter's Johnson,( see what I did) I compromised and didn't call it his shlong... oops. And they withheld a link to a newspaper for a few days.
 

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
36,790
Reaction score
14,904
Points
1,600
Not in your case. I'm not the one trying to claim there's a huge Twitter scandal because they didn't post Hunter's Johnson,( see what I did) I compromised and didn't call it his shlong... oops. And they withheld a link to a newspaper for a few days.
oh, you disagree with me so im sure i am the stupid one.

however - trump said something stupid. had he acted upon it, i would be one of the first to fight him on it. the constitution can't be what i want it to be, it has to be what we all share as a common ground. when you ignore that so your side can be right, you are far from an intellectual, much less honest.

you know this has nothing to do with hunters dick; you just can't get to get off of it.


"Among the DOJ’s disclosures is an email from a senior Facebook official to the Surgeon General, which states, “I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.”

if this is as you say - to get rid of dick pics, again, why hide the request if it's valid?

and 2 - why have 45 agencies involved and have to safeguard against misinformation in general? were they not really HIS dick? just what misinformation are we controlling if this is all about his dick?

have fun with that one, spanky.

oh look at the next paragraph:

"Another email shows that Twitter scheduled a meeting to debrief top White House officials on “vaccine misinformation” and “ways the White House (and our COVID experts) can partner in product work.”"

so - do we have a vaccine for his schlong pics that need a good regulating?
 
Last edited:

beagle9

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
36,032
Reaction score
11,784
Points
1,400
Interesting reading. And now I wonder if anything will be done about it...and if twitter did this shit prior to Musk buying it...then what was Zuckerberg up to? Musk bought the place and wound up exposing a lot of corruption...and interference to a political election. Treason.



Just a sample (for those not on twitter):






Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
20h

7. Slowly, over time, Twitter staff and executives began to find more and more uses for these tools. Outsiders began petitioning the company to manipulate speech as well: first a little, then more often, then constantly.

3,538

14.4K

90.4K






Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
20h

8. By 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another: “More to review from the Biden team.” The reply would come back: “Handled.”
Image

7,116

42.6K

139.9K






Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
20h

9. Celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party:
Image

3,618

22.9K

101.7K






Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
20h

10.Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However:

3,069

13.5K

76.9K






Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
20h

11. This system wasn't balanced. It was based on contacts. Because Twitter was and is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation, there were more channels, more ways to complain, open to the left (well, Democrats) than the right. https://opensecrets.org/orgs/twitter/summary?id=D000067113…
Image

3,123

24.1K

103.3K






Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
20h

12. The resulting slant in content moderation decisions is visible in the documents you’re about to read. However, it’s also the assessment of multiple current and former high-level executives.

1,625

11.5K

77.9K






Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
20h

Okay, there was more throat-clearing about the process, but screw it, let's jump forward

1,304

7,773

66.7K





Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
We need an investigation that will dwarf the Mueller investigation on this bull crap. Infact it may even drag the players from the Mueller team back into question, otherwise as to what their entire agenda was in total. Mueller and Comey were at the FBI together weren't they ? Weren't they best bud's one time ??

The FBI seems to be up to it's nose in the bull crap, along with the woke Democrat's, the Democrat cabal, and many other government entities.

Treason trials might need to be conducted when all is said and done.

Exonerations will need to start immediately for anyone who was thrown in prison or jail because they were trying their little hearts out to protest the corruption big time.

Trump should be exonerated fully, and possibly reinstated as POTUS. Biden and son should be going to jail. Hey they had no Mercy on Nixon, and it shouldn't be any different when the shoe is placed on the other foot.
 

Couchpotato

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
5,655
Reaction score
2,906
Points
938
No, I'm saying he can't compel the government to not extend the mortarium after he ruled for it. His solo opinion is not legally binding. It takes a quorum to make it legally binding. The CDC extended, and it came up again before the Supreme Court, they ordered the mortarium to be lifted, and the government complied.

What you are saying is that because Kavanaugh signaled what his likely ruling would be if they extended. It somehow becomes an unlawful act to make the Supreme Court rule on the extension.

Just to make it a bit more practical. Kavanaugh in his original ruling signaled that he accepted that the Constitutionality of the order wasn't the only consideration. He acknowledged that there was a public health interest too. Lawyers defending the second extension could reasonably argue that that consideration was still in place. You are trying to claim that the government didn't have the right to make any such argument just because of what Kavanaugh said in the first case. This is not how the law works.
Kavanaugh said in his opinion that the moratorium was unconstitutional and the only reason he was voting to not end it was because it expired in 2 weeks. The administration knew this, Biden said that the Legislature needed to pass legislation to extend the moratorium given the SCOTUS ruling just prior to having the CDC issue another extension knowing full well the court would slap it down. Even Roberts voted against the extension.

I never said it was illegal, is just saying the Constitution should be violated illegal? You're all bent out of shape because someone who isn't the President said the Constitution should be circumvented but fine with the actual current President attempting to do so?
 

Rambunctious

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
56,689
Reaction score
46,063
Points
3,605
 

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
36,790
Reaction score
14,904
Points
1,600
Kavanaugh said in his opinion that the moratorium was unconstitutional and the only reason he was voting to not end it was because it expired in 2 weeks. The administration knew this, Biden said that the Legislature needed to pass legislation to extend the moratorium given the SCOTUS ruling just prior to having the CDC issue another extension knowing full well the court would slap it down. Even Roberts voted against the extension.

I never said it was illegal, is just saying the Constitution should be violated illegal? You're all bent out of shape because someone who isn't the President said the Constitution should be circumvented but fine with the actual current President attempting to do so?
Attempting?

He's done it many times
 

Delldude

Sheep Dipped Boy Scout
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
10,156
Reaction score
6,532
Points
938
Location
Plasticville U.S.A
So an unverified story in the New York post available to anybody even remotely capable of performing a Google search was held up for 2 days on twitter, an action that was reversed. And this somehow is a great scandal?
Out of curiosity, who said the story was unverified?

Are you saying you don't believe CBS's findings from the laptop drive?
CBS nailed it as accurate and untouched.
After the Russian disinformation campaign to get Donald Trump elected in 2016 the FBI began targeting such things.

If you want to blame soneone blame Trump for not only welcoming but inviting interference from one of the America's arch enemies in the 2016 election.
Can you supply a link that Russia got Trump elected in 2016 even though Fuller Mueller said they didn't?
The first amendment handles the government restricting speech by establishing laws. The government is free to request whatever they want.

That's ok, if you are unwilling to read 2 paragraphs I will simply form a conclusion about your intellectual honesty.
What of the government 'legally' skirting said laws?
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top