less crypticism and more specificity please.
That is a sentence without a clear subject
Twitter is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election
- Thread starter ziggy
- Start date
That is a sentence without a clear subject
HA HA.
Liberty = censorship by attaching corrections to comments..Such Orwellian trash.
we've never really gotten into this discussion except for minor political players before.
I don't want ANYONE banned or "fact checked" ( because fact checking is in itself a political thing) for ANYONE.
So now it's front and center -deal with it
..and the loser loses the debateGo fuck yourself. Is that clear enough?
You aren't here to debate. You are here to troll. I'm assuming you are supplementing your income, since there is less need these days for 'operators standing by to take your call'.
BartenderElite
Verified User
Of course - which is why you're only speaking up about it NOW.
It's Twitter's content. Period. I'm done arguing the merits of American values w/ you. You do not understand the concept of free speech or private ownership.
you conflate every damn thing and then hide corporate control of free speech under the guise of American values.
i.e. fascism
Direct Response media ( operators and web order off TV commercials) is SLAMMING.
People haven't been able to shop so they order off TV . I can't even get off the phone before another calls punches thru
hilarious. Coming from the poster who thinks "fuck you" is "debate"
John Barron
Verified User
Trumpsters want Trump to have free speech but don't want Twitter to have free speech. You just can't make up this shit any better than this.
you IDIOT. corporations don't have "free speech" it's an individual right. Corporate political spending is protected
BartenderElite
Verified User
And that political spending is viewed as speech. And corporations absolutely have as much right to speech as anyone - and a right to determine their content, if they are an online entity.
It's really flabbergasting that you don't think they have that right. Why would anyone be incentivized to create a Twitter or Facebook if they knew they would lose control of their ownership?
as usual your points are willy niily unfocused trash
ownership of what? speech? advertising ? platform?
Corporations are individuals. See: Citizens United. You didn't know this? So corporations do indeed have protections afforded to individuals. You need to read the cult talking points. You are straying from the narrative.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Trump makes up wild Conspiracy Theories and Trumptards lose their shit and repeats his lies!
And this thread is just one of my many many obvious examples of it!
Thanks Trumptards for helping me make my case!
That's OK! Because the world is smarter than Donald Trump and all of his Trumptards!
Trump's Dumbing Down of the Republican Party just keeps going and going and going! LOL!
Last edited:
jesus christ you are so fucking incomplete on your thoughts..
I already addressed this. the only similarity is SPENDING on campaigns/issues is protected by CU
BartenderElite
Verified User
Ownership of their companies.
You guys are all anti-Socialist until Trump enters the picture. I swear you would elect him King for life if you could.
more mish mashed unfocused rants. I am not going to continue to try to pry out your meanings.
No. Wrong. Completely. FREE SPEECH is protected. That was the crux of the Citizens United ruling. So I don't really care what you addressed, since you are a fountain of ignorance and misinformation. I would suggest maybe getting some deprogramming and getting out of the cult.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZC.html
"The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.
The Court properly rejects that theory, and I join its opinion in full. The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer. I write separately to address the important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case."
Get a clue, and stop sticking your foot in you mouth.
Well I agree, they should have been calling his lies lies a long time ago...... But better late than ever..
Shamefully there is no lie to large, or any indecency to disgusting for "some ppl" to actually say something, ever so mildly to the child they voted for. ALL I CAN SEE IT IS VERY, VERY SAD.......
He is going to lie the gop right out of existence & the fools that looked the other way & bit their forked tongues w/ them.............