Banned From Youtube Tucker Carlson Questions Vaccine Safety

Not sure where you're getting this. False alarms, whether for a fire or a bomb, often categorized as felonies. "Free speech" will not work as a defense.

I am getting this from the Constitution of the United States and most State constitutions. Documents which you don't recognize.
Such 'laws' are unconstitutional.
 
No entrails needed. The facts are simple - Trump knows literally nothing about modern technology.
He doesn't need to.
We also know that Trump is very reluctant to rely on experts.
He relies on them all the time. He openly supports doing so.
Therefore, the more Trump is involved with a particular endeavor, the more policies he sets, the more he is involved in the day-to-day operations, the more likely it is to fail.
Are you seriously suggesting Trump wrote his own software???
Therefore, for Trump to start his own social media platform, he will either have A) to become extraordinarily savvy with both technology and social media. Or B) he'll have to recruit people who ARE savvy - but will occasionally have to tell Trump things that he doesn't want to hear.
No need for that either. There are plenty of people capable of building a website and software that fully support Trump.
The first requirement A) is so far outside the realm of possibility that I'm comfortable saying it's impossible. And B) is proven recipe for disaster, as evidenced by Trump's documented inability to work with subject matter experts like medical professionals, and military experts.
This is bigotry, and a lie.

The military was proud to serve under Trump, and did it well. The doctors that treated him also were proud of the success of their job and having the honor of serving Trump. Trump doesn't like Fauci, because Fauci has gone full bonkers. Fauci is NOT 'medical experts'. He is not everyone. Fauci is one man caught in his own paradoxes.

TDS, Denial of history. Bigotry. False authority fallacies.
 
I am getting this from the Constitution of the United States and most State constitutions. Documents which you don't recognize.
Such 'laws' are unconstitutional.
Do they continued to be "unconstitutional" once they've been upheld by the Supreme Court? If so, what do you consider the "ultimate" litmus test of what is, and is not constitutional?
 
Maybe if youtube banned Tucker Carlson, it was because Carson was spreading disinformation.

The democrats spread false information every minute. All those asshat did was up his ratings. That is what really pisses them off.
 
Do they continued to be "unconstitutional" once they've been upheld by the Supreme Court? If so, what do you consider the "ultimate" litmus test of what is, and is not constitutional?

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution, or to interpret the Constitution, or to destroy the Constitution.
Only the owners of the Constitution, namely the States, have that authority.
 
The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution, or to interpret the Constitution, or to destroy the Constitution.
Only the owners of the Constitution, namely the States, have that authority.

You are mistaken - the Supreme Court is fully empowered when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

Source - The Supreme Court
 
Back
Top