Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Donald J. Trump (For everyone else)

06-01-2024 , 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
I have never seen this discussed here and it all sounds pretty silly to me.
The right already thinks that all the tech and social media companies support the agenda of the left. Why would they need to be threatened by the Biden administration to suppress information contradicting that?

Social media companies do what they want to do. Do you think Truth Social is also taking orders from the Biden administration?
I logged into a MuskTwitter account for a week and no matter how many alt right accounts that were forced into my feed that I blocked I can’t stop being inundated by alt right Twitter accounts

Gave up and just deleted my account

But ya, biden controls social media sure why not
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
No they are accused of requesting (not asking) while threatening, and not only "covid misinformation".

//

Facts of the case
Multiple plaintiffs, including epidemiologists, consumer and human rights advocates, academics, and media operators, claimed that various defendants, including numerous federal agencies and officials, have engaged in censorship, targeting conservative-leaning speech on topics such as the 2020 presidential election, COVID-19 origins, mask and vaccine efficacy, and election integrity. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants used public statements and threats of regulatory action, such as reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to induce social media platforms to suppress content, thereby violating the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The States of Missouri and Louisiana also alleged harm due to the infringement of the free speech rights of their citizens.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government from meeting with social media companies or otherwise seeking to influence their content-moderation policies. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s motion for an emergency stay and granted certiorari to review the case on the merits.

//

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-411

On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s assessment of the evidence, which, in its words, showed the existence of “a coordinated campaign” of unprecedented “magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.” Missouri v. Biden, 2023 WL 6425697, *27. The Court of Appeals found that “the district court was correct in its assessment—‘unrelenting pressure’ from certain government officials likely ‘had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.’ ” Ibid.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/23A243

And at last let's see the 5th district appeal court decision on the topic



"how have i arrived at the idea that the government threatened the platforms", well it was public, repeatedly, it was the district court assessment and it's the appeal court assessment.

so we have 2 federal courts claiming various parts of the Biden administration, for years, violently coherced and threatened all the major social media companies in the USA to censor citizens' speech. That's direct use of executive powers to annihilate one of the most important rights of the US constitution, on a mass scale (not a few individuals, millions). Nothing that Trump ever did with executive power comes even vaguely close to this. Keep in mind that no matter what you think Trump role was on jan 6th, he didn't abuse executive power there. He didn't order militaries or agencies to profoundly violate any constitutional right of millions of individuals.

He might have had a role into attempting election interference and so on but not by massive blatantly unconstitutional abuses of executive powers. And threats to democracy are exactly that: that an elected official disregards fundamental constitutional rights and acts violating them for the masses, thus nullying the rule of law in the country.
So you don't think that calling a state elected official in charge of counting the votes for president and threatening him to change the count is an abuse of executive powers?
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
I'd wait for polls to judge the extent of his recent losses (might be big, might be null)
What election did republicans won since 2016 while trump was at the helm . They did poorly in 2018-20-22.
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
Ordering the military to do so, or ordering law enforcement not to enforce the law , or using executive agencies illegally against congressional mandate to pursue unconstitutional outcomes, or trying to appropriate money as the executive congress hasn't voted for to pay your political supporters, stuff like that.

Using the powers the constitution gives you illegally against the separation of power principle, and/or against constitutionally protected rights.

Also keep in mind Trump didn't order those thousands of civilians to attack the capitol and he is not indicted for that
Trump certainly didn’t try to use foreign judicial system like Ukraine to frame Biden either right ?
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
Well he nominated judges that actually reversed roe and increased 2a protections, things that do protect the conservative way of life.

A lot of people correctly had doubts at the beginning but then he nominated 3 decent (for the right) judges , that's a fact. Also a thing used by opponents to criticize him ofc.

But you can't both criticize him for picking judges that abhor liberal ethics and then for being an actual liberal infiltrated at the top of GOP lol
The "conservative way of life" consists of thinking you should control what other people do which has absolutely nothing to do with you, and to always be carrying a gun, with which to threaten those people doing things you don't like.

Trump rubber stamped his judicial nominations who were chosen by conservative think tanks.

And he is not actually a liberal or a conservative. His only goal is personal power and attention. He realized he could not get that from those who actually knew him, so he decided to join the republican party, where he could find more people gullible enough to fall for his antics.
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
I have never seen this discussed here and it all sounds pretty silly to me.
The right already thinks that all the tech and social media companies support the agenda of the left. Why would they need to be threatened by the Biden administration to suppress information contradicting that?

Social media companies do what they want to do. Do you think Truth Social is also taking orders from the Biden administration?
There is countless references/evidence from the twitter files as I understand of government forcing social media to comply government censorship of truth. My understanding is the social media platforms are in fact legally compelled.

When jack ran twitter it was a concerted effort against the right/republicans etc mostly.

Saying its 'left' as a opposed to right would make one blind to what happened.

Also elon owns it now as X, but its no better in this regard. Which again is why its wrong to think of it as behind 'right' now because musk speaks out against biden. Its still INCREDIBLY controlled and controlling software. This will be known within about a year I think, they're making it very easy to organize crime on twitter.
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoppedRainingMen

But ya, biden controls social media sure why not
I don't think anyone believes biden controls anything.
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
OK. But that is different than a jury in one state acquitting while a jury in another state convicts when the law and the facts are the same. Your examples concern different states wanting different laws. That a difference in values. But if the trial in two different states go 12-0 one way in state x and 12-0 the other way in state y that is very problematical if the law and facts are the same. Basically anyone who is convicted of any crime by a unanimous jury verdict has a right to feel screwed if he somehow knew that a randomly picked jury of US citizens would have had a few unwilling to vote for a guilty verdict.
It's an alarming symptom of what we already know. There is a very serious, potentially terminal geographical divide in the usa.
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoppedRainingMen
I logged into a MuskTwitter account for a week and no matter how many alt right accounts that were forced into my feed that I blocked I can’t stop being inundated by alt right Twitter accounts

Gave up and just deleted my account

But ya, biden controls social media sure why not
Yes the smallest of the major social media companies very recently moved to the median of American society (which is rightwing ).

This is what proves the democratic party doesn't control anything, even if anti white posts aren't censored on Facebook but any black ones are
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
The "conservative way of life" consists of thinking you should control what other people do which has absolutely nothing to do with you, and to always be carrying a gun, with which to threaten those people doing things you don't like.

Trump rubber stamped his judicial nominations who were chosen by conservative think tanks.

And he is not actually a liberal or a conservative. His only goal is personal power and attention. He realized he could not get that from those who actually knew him, so he decided to join the republican party, where he could find more people gullible enough to fall for his antics.
If Trump rubber stamps actual conservative decisions, that's still proof trump does actually act in the interest of conservative values.

Nobody should care about what a politician is, the only thing that matters is what he does. And unlike in 2016, we have a track record now.

And trump is one of the least dangerous presidents possible if congress doesn't align with him. He just likes golf too much.

Now under the assumption the Senate will be republican, there is a strong case for a Biden presidency which is what I think would be best. a divided government with the Senate never accepting any compromise with democrats on anything which isn't a 100% conservative value, so almost nothing gets done, which is close to the best possible outcome for government.

I want a Biden presidency where the Senate doesn't accept any Biden name for any secretary position basically, that would be the dream.
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
It's an alarming symptom of what we already know. There is a very serious, potentially terminal geographical divide in the usa.
Maybe. But that is not what bothers me. Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are fallacies in both Texas and New York. No reason why those who pick juries in both places should avoid disqualifying people who fall for them (or incorrect analogies).
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Maybe. But that is not what bothers me. Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are fallacies in both Texas and New York. No reason why those who pick juries in both places should avoid disqualifying people who fall for them (or incorrect analogies).
I think it also bothers you that AI gives the beholder an unlimited power advantage in this regard.

All you need is metadata.
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Maybe. But that is not what bothers me. Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are fallacies in both Texas and New York. No reason why those who pick juries in both places should avoid disqualifying people who fall for them (or incorrect analogies).
How is any of this related to the present case? Or, to put it another way, what in the actual **** are you banging on about?
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Maybe. But that is not what bothers me. Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are fallacies in both Texas and New York. No reason why those who pick juries in both places should avoid disqualifying people who fall for them (or incorrect analogies).
if logic skills are required then I suspect you're at the stage of abolishing human juries. A lot of judges should be worried as well.
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
if logic skills are required then I suspect you're at the stage of abolishing human juries. A lot of judges should be worried as well.
And some poker book authors.
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 05:25 PM
and some trolls
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Maybe. But that is not what bothers me. Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are fallacies in both Texas and New York. No reason why those who pick juries in both places should avoid disqualifying people who fall for them (or incorrect analogies).
There was absolutely zero reason to use the word ‘antecedent’ in this post
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
if logic skills are required then I suspect you're at the stage of abolishing human juries. A lot of judges should be worried as well.
How about having professional jurors?
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
How about having professional jurors?
In a capitalist or socialist society?
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
How about having professional jurors?
I’ll make you a deal. I’ll agree to this nonsense if you agree to remove voting as a birthright and require passing a test to attain

Just as long as we’re coming up with ludicrous bullshit together
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
How about having professional jurors?
Not a fan but is it even practical. How many people qualify and would the hours they're willing to commit come close to meeting the demand?
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoppedRainingMen
I’ll make you a deal. I’ll agree to this nonsense if you agree to remove voting as a birthright and require passing a test to attain

Just as long as we’re coming up with ludicrous bullshit together
DS and D2 will both be happy with that sort of 'ludicrous bullshit'
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Not a fan but is it even practical. How many people qualify and would the hours they're willing to commit come close to meeting the demand?
There’s no practicality. The whole point of a jury of your peers is to remove as much implied bias as humanly possible and have people who can immediately detach once the jury renders its decision

Klansky isn’t the first person to propose that stupidity but once jurors are professional there’s a bias in it. What metrics do you have to keep your job? What’s your oversight that you answer to? Plenty of other questions that make this notion disqualifying
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 06:01 PM
To clarify a few things I wrote

Almost all people think that Trump was guilty.

The main controversy is whether he should have been FOUND guilty.

Some of those who think he should not have been found guilty actually think that he should have been found guilty, given the judge's jury instructions. They think if the judge's instructions were not flawed, some of the jurors would have switched their votes.

Most of the people who have an opinion on whether he should have been found guilty don't know enough to have their opinion taken seriously, both because they don't have enough information or intelligence to come to a correct conclusion, and because they are influenced by their desire to see Trump win or lose.

As to my post about Matusow and James Woods:

Their statement was made together while addressing several people.

They made their statement before the jury verdict and were talking not about the verdict but rather about all the indictments.

There is a small chance I misheard and that they were in fact quoting what they thought other people were thinking.

I don't think I misheard because I believe I also heard them saying negative things about Trump (narcissist, dumb, etc) that originally had them staying home (not voting for Biden). But again, there is a small chance they were quoting others.

If I misheard, I will know soon enough since I will almost surely have the chance to ask them myself during the wsop.
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote
06-01-2024 , 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Not a fan but is it even practical. How many people qualify and would the hours they're willing to commit come close to meeting the demand?
It would be a full time job, dipshit. Hence, "professional".
Donald J. Trump (For everyone else) Quote

      
m