Twittergate aka The Twitter Files

[forkup]

Yo. Fuck stick, this is about Biden.

Done talking with you. It's a one way street on bullshit Avenue.

By by.

 

[Marener]

The gov cannot limit free speech. Period.

They did in this case. A lot.

Keep repeating the same lie, it doesn’t become more true.

The government does not tell social media what to do. It gives them information and let’s them make their own choices.

 

[iceberg]

Keep repeating the same lie, it doesn’t become more true.

The government does not tell social media what to do. It gives them information and let’s them make their own choices.

Bullshit. Even zuck is on record as asking the gov what they want him to do.

Keep repeating the same lie...

 

[Marener]

Even zuck is on record as asking the gov what they want him to do.

If Zuck wants to ask the government what to do, that’s his choice.

That’s not the government forcing him to do anything. You can’t stop people from voluntarily asking the government for advice.

You believe biased right wing media characterizations that are false and only serve to promote a narrative of victimhood.

 

[iceberg]

If Zuck wants to ask the government what to do, that’s his choice.

That’s not the government forcing him to do anything. You can’t stop people from voluntarily asking the government for advice.

You believe biased right wing media characterizations that are false and only serve to promote a narrative of victimhood.

No. I believe you are full of shit.

It has nothing to do with right or left. Don't limit me because of your own limitations.

 

[Marener]

No. I believe you are full of shit.

It has nothing to do with right or left. Don't limit me because of your own limitations.

You believe right wing media narrative, so it definitely is right and left.

The facts are clear that the government doesn’t tell social media what to do. Social media makes their own decisions with the information they’re given.

Even Taibbi admits this; that government wasn’t involved in the laptop story. The right wing media skips over that (or sometimes tries to twist the language about it).

 

[Faun]

Bullshit. Even zuck is on record as asking the gov what they want him to do.

Keep repeating the same lie...

We're they forced to obey the FBI?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Try thi

Try this again.

Is there any evidence that Twitter's witholding of Hunter's dick-pics swayed the 2020 election?

And whatever Twitter may have withheld, it was not at the behest of the government; Twitter acted of its own volition and accord.

 

[Marener]

We're they forced to obey the FBI?

Of course not. Nor did the FBI actually tell them what to do with the information. The FBI would just say that they think certain posts might be against their TOS.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Which is what the FBI is supposed to do, combat Russian election interference.

Social media are at liberty to act as they see fit.

 

[Couchpotato]

Sorry, that last post was because I started replying to this post, ran out of time, came back to the OP and started to reply to someone else.

Back to my actual reply.

II honestly have a problem with understanding the point you're trying to make. It's perfectly possible that's on me, but I have a question. If you don't contest the legality of Biden's actions why do you insist it's unconstitutional?

The Constitution as I understand it clearly proscribes the different roles of the respective branches of government. It clearly states how one goes about redressing ones grievances if one of these branches steps out of bounds. You seemingly aren't contesting that those procedures were followed. So it seems odd that you insist that the Constitution wasn't followed?

I’m saying the President knowingly did something that the SCOTUS had already said was unconstitutional. 2 days prior to him taking the action he was saying the Congress needed to pass legislation in order to extend the moratorium. It wasn’t until Congress failed to do so that he had the CDC extend the moratorium he knew the SCOTUS would overrule.

Biden calls on Congress to extend the federal eviction freeze for one month. (Published 2021)

The moratorium on residential evictions is scheduled to expire on Saturday.

www.nytimes.com

If the admin believed that they had the power to do this via the CDC why ask Congress to do it?

Presidents should not be doing things they know are unconstitutional in an effort to essentially get their way while the issue works its way through the court. I believe they did the same thing with the student debt forgiveness.

 

[Marener]

I’m saying the President knowingly did something that the SCOTUS had already said was unconstitutional. 2 days prior to him taking the action he was saying the Congress needed to pass legislation in order to extend the moratorium. It wasn’t until Congress failed to do so that he had the CDC extend the moratorium he knew the SCOTUS would overrule.

Biden calls on Congress to extend the federal eviction freeze for one month. (Published 2021)

The moratorium on residential evictions is scheduled to expire on Saturday.

www.nytimes.com

If the admin believed that they had the power to do this via the CDC why ask Congress to do it?

Presidents should not be doing things they know are unconstitutional in an effort to essentially get their way while the issue works its way through the court. I believe they did the same thing with the student debt forgiveness.

What about all those states that kept passing abortion bans that they knew would be unconstitutional?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I’m saying the President knowingly did something that the SCOTUS had already said was unconstitutional. 2 days prior to him taking the action he was saying the Congress needed to pass legislation in order to extend the moratorium. It wasn’t until Congress failed to do so that he had the CDC extend the moratorium he knew the SCOTUS would overrule.

Biden calls on Congress to extend the federal eviction freeze for one month. (Published 2021)

The moratorium on residential evictions is scheduled to expire on Saturday.

www.nytimes.com

If the admin believed that they had the power to do this via the CDC why ask Congress to do it?

Presidents should not be doing things they know are unconstitutional in an effort to essentially get their way while the issue works its way through the court. I believe they did the same thing with the student debt forgiveness.

Having nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

[Couchpotato]

Having nothing to do with the thread topic.

Was I talking to you?

 

[forkup]

I’m saying the President knowingly did something that the SCOTUS had already said was unconstitutional. 2 days prior to him taking the action he was saying the Congress needed to pass legislation in order to extend the moratorium. It wasn’t until Congress failed to do so that he had the CDC extend the moratorium he knew the SCOTUS would overrule.

Biden calls on Congress to extend the federal eviction freeze for one month. (Published 2021)

The moratorium on residential evictions is scheduled to expire on Saturday.

www.nytimes.com

If the admin believed that they had the power to do this via the CDC why ask Congress to do it?

Presidents should not be doing things they know are unconstitutional in an effort to essentially get their way while the issue works its way through the court. I believe they did the same thing with the student debt forgiveness.

They used procedures that were available to them. Procedures that are specifically awarded to them by the Constitution. I agree that chances are they did so in bad faith. Knowing that the chances they would get away with were slim. But quite honestly "gaming the system" as they call it, happens all the time by loads of people. that is a whataboutism (an argument I don't like, and that this is by the way from your side) but the fact stands.

It also is a direct consequence I might add of the simple fact that when it comes to passing laws congress has become incredibly ineffective. In this particular case for instance the President personally intervened because congress wasn't willing to protect millions of people from eviction. I understand that there is another side to the argument. Namely homeowners being able to rent out their properties but you can hardly claim it was done for some nefarious purpose.

My main point is again. In my view there is a fundamental difference between a president being prepared to game a system in order to reach desired goals. (Something that every president, every congress, millions of Americans have done before him, including the guy you are defending by this whataboutism but only to a far greater extent). And the presumptive nominee for the 2024 Republican Presidential ticket saying that he wants to terminate parts of the Constitution. The first is playing by the rules. The second is saying you don't want any rules.

 

[forkup]

Having nothing to do with the thread topic.

Yes, we went kind of topic. I don't see a problem as long as we both agree.

 

[Couchpotato]

What about all those states that kept passing abortion bans that they knew would be unconstitutional?

Roe didn’t say States were not allowed to pass laws concerning abortion. In fact it says the opposite.

 

[Marener]

Roe didn’t say States were not allowed to pass laws concerning abortion. In fact it says the opposite.

The states were passing laws that Roe clearly indicated were unconstitutional. Don’t be evasive. This is basic fact, not something you can spin.

 

[Couchpotato]

They used procedures that were available to them. Procedures that are specifically awarded to them by the Constitution. I agree that chances are they did so in bad faith. Knowing that the chances they would get away with were slim. But quite honestly "gaming the system" as they call it, happens all the time by loads of people. that is a whataboutism (an argument I don't like, and that this is by the way from your side) but the fact stands.

It also is a direct consequence I might add of the simple fact that when it comes to passing laws congress has become incredibly ineffective. In this particular case for instance the President personally intervened because congress wasn't willing to protect millions of people from eviction. I understand that there is another side to the argument. Namely homeowners being able to rent out their properties but you can hardly claim it was done for some nefarious purpose.

My main point is again. In my view there is a fundamental difference between a president being prepared to game a system in order to reach desired goals. (Something that every president, every congress, millions of Americans have done before him, including the guy you are defending by this whataboutism but only to a far greater extent). And the presumptive nominee for the 2024 Republican Presidential ticket saying that he wants to terminate parts of the Constitution. The first is playing by the rules. The second is saying you don't want any rules.

So if a President signs an EO that abridges free speech you would be ok with that? You’re contention is that Presidents are under no obligation to not intentionally violate the Constitution?

 

[Couchpotato]

The states were passing laws that Roe clearly indicated were unconstitutional. Don’t be evasive. This is basic fact, not something you can spin.

Roe was relatively vague with regard to dates (on purpose I presume), so if you'd like to give a specific example of a law that was passed by a state and how it specifically ran in opposition to Roe I'd be happy to give my opinion, but just asking a blanket "what about laws passed by states etc" I cant speak to. It's also needs to be pointed out that Roe was an old decision, whereas what I was referring to was a decision less than a month old. It's not reasonable to assume the same court that held one way a month ago would have changed it's legal rationale for its decison.