Trump says Twitter is "stifling free speech" after it labels his tweets with fact-check...
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
axiomatic13
Posts: 657 +835
Free speech means no one should be able to disagree with you??Am I understanding you correctly?
I... I just said that we live in a time where that's how people interpret it. It wasn't literal mate...
OptimumSlinky
Posts: 276 +510
Then why is he busy bailing out major corporations and printing money left and right?
Because that flies in the face of all libertarian free market arguments.
The level of ignorance and cognitive dissonance from Trump supporters is astounding.
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
Trump is ripe for claiming voter fraud. He formed a commission for it after the last presidential election. That comission sent letters to all 50 states requesting information, and even some republican governors declined to provide that information. Trump then disbanded the commission stating that DHS would investigate.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...ission-heres-what-the-controversial-group-did
Of course, in that Fox News article, conservatives were claiming that democrats were standing in the way. Maybe they should have said, both republicans and democrats were standing in the way.
So it is about two years later and DHS has not released anything. The interesting part is that DHS said they had no plans to investigate the matter nearly immediately after Trump tasked them with doing so. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-dhs-idUSKBN1EU1YF
Oh, I know, the deep-state. ?
Trump will lose on this. He clearly has no inkling of previous SCOTUS rulings on free speech and what they have said with respect to the first amendment intending to promote discourse - and discourse implies, if not outright means, that opposing opinions are welcomed.
If I understand this particular instance of fact checking, they are not saying voter fraud, particularly mail-in voter fraud, does not exist. In fact, they are saying that it does exist; however, it is not the rampantly wild kind that Trump claims exists. In fact, what they are saying is that the voter fraud that exists is statistically insignificant - in other words, the votes that are legitimate far outweigh those that are such that any election results would still represent the will of the legitimate voters.
Even the Federal Election Committee completely debunked Trump's hypothesis that mail-in voter fraud is rampant. More so, the FEC went so far as to say that Trump's hypothesis of rampant mail-in voter fraud undermines democracy.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fec-commissioner-debunks-trump-mail-vote-conspiracy-theory-2020-5
So now it is not just "Fact Checkers" saying Trump's assertions are not true, it is the FEC. I know, don't tell me it is the deep state again. ?
Right there, in the words "undermines democracy" is the crux of the matter. Essentially, as I see it anyway, (and by the way, feel free to offer an opinion contrary to mine as that is what free speech entitles everyone to do) Trump's insistence that there is rampant voter fraud of any kind is pure propaganda. It does not matter if he believes that there is; what matters is that there is no evidence of the rampant mail-in voter fraud that he claims exists.
To quote someone from not-too-distant past, "Congressman, because this is America. This is the country I've served and defended. That all of my brothers have served. And here, right matters."
All anyone would have to do to prove Trump correct is to find irrefutable evidence of rampant voter fraud. No one yet has - not Trump's commission, not the FEC, not republican governors, no one. And because no one has found that evidence, people say that fact checkers are offering evidence that cannot be refuted?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...ission-heres-what-the-controversial-group-did
Of course, in that Fox News article, conservatives were claiming that democrats were standing in the way. Maybe they should have said, both republicans and democrats were standing in the way.
So it is about two years later and DHS has not released anything. The interesting part is that DHS said they had no plans to investigate the matter nearly immediately after Trump tasked them with doing so. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-dhs-idUSKBN1EU1YF
Oh, I know, the deep-state.
?Trump will lose on this. He clearly has no inkling of previous SCOTUS rulings on free speech and what they have said with respect to the first amendment intending to promote discourse - and discourse implies, if not outright means, that opposing opinions are welcomed.
It is true that logically, you cannot disprove some things with certain statements such as "there is no evidence that extraterrestrial aliens exist, therefore, no extraterrestrial aliens exist." That is a logical fallacy; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If I understand this particular instance of fact checking, they are not saying voter fraud, particularly mail-in voter fraud, does not exist. In fact, they are saying that it does exist; however, it is not the rampantly wild kind that Trump claims exists. In fact, what they are saying is that the voter fraud that exists is statistically insignificant - in other words, the votes that are legitimate far outweigh those that are such that any election results would still represent the will of the legitimate voters.
Even the Federal Election Committee completely debunked Trump's hypothesis that mail-in voter fraud is rampant. More so, the FEC went so far as to say that Trump's hypothesis of rampant mail-in voter fraud undermines democracy.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fec-commissioner-debunks-trump-mail-vote-conspiracy-theory-2020-5
So now it is not just "Fact Checkers" saying Trump's assertions are not true, it is the FEC. I know, don't tell me it is the deep state again.
?Right there, in the words "undermines democracy" is the crux of the matter. Essentially, as I see it anyway, (and by the way, feel free to offer an opinion contrary to mine as that is what free speech entitles everyone to do) Trump's insistence that there is rampant voter fraud of any kind is pure propaganda. It does not matter if he believes that there is; what matters is that there is no evidence of the rampant mail-in voter fraud that he claims exists.
To quote someone from not-too-distant past, "Congressman, because this is America. This is the country I've served and defended. That all of my brothers have served. And here, right matters."
All anyone would have to do to prove Trump correct is to find irrefutable evidence of rampant voter fraud. No one yet has - not Trump's commission, not the FEC, not republican governors, no one. And because no one has found that evidence, people say that fact checkers are offering evidence that cannot be refuted?
Last edited:
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
Gaara
Posts: 138 +75
Trump says Twitter is interfering with elections when it facts checks his tweets. Isn't he interfering with the election by tweeting slander, lies, and inaccurate facts?
Ryan Barrett
Posts: 56 +14
I say block him for a day, then let him back on. Block him for another day some time later. Keept doing it sporadically, let him cry about it on the news and eventually he'll just get frustrated, take his ball and go home. That's how you treat petulant children.
Okay, clearly some fools around here do not understand the 1st Amendment.
Let me make it clear. The 1st Amendment does not protect you against companies. It ONLY protects you FROM the Government censoring your speech. If a private company censors you on their platform, they are within their rights.
Trump is the ***** who clicked "Yes" on the Twitter terms of service. He deserves what he gets on this.
Let me make it clear. The 1st Amendment does not protect you against companies. It ONLY protects you FROM the Government censoring your speech. If a private company censors you on their platform, they are within their rights.
Trump is the ***** who clicked "Yes" on the Twitter terms of service. He deserves what he gets on this.
We have ALL agreed to terms of service or we wouldn't be posting here.
We ALL know what that means. If Techspot decides to label one of these posts as needing a fact check, there ain't CRAP you can do about it. Techspot will win in court because they have the right to manage their platform however they see fit.
We ALL know what that means. If Techspot decides to label one of these posts as needing a fact check, there ain't CRAP you can do about it. Techspot will win in court because they have the right to manage their platform however they see fit.
In fact, I hope Twitter bans him. Attempting this "Executive order" stuff is a clear attempt to circumvent Twitter terms of service and can legally be met with the full force of the law behind Twitter, not the president. Trump doesn't even have a leg to stand on in court here. All Twitter has to do is show the court that Trump agreed to Terms of Service and it's done. Trump loses.
You can't ban the President as that would become a PR nightmare that Twitter absolutely does not want. Doesn't matter whether they're "right" or not.
Just let him hang himself by his own words and fact check them like they're doing now.
Just let him hang himself by his own words and fact check them like they're doing now.
OptimumSlinky
Posts: 276 +510
Conservatives: "Get the government out of the free market!"
Trump: Here, let me target the private company and platform that hurt my feelings.
variety.com
Trump: Here, let me target the private company and platform that hurt my feelings.
Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting Twitter, Facebook That Legal Experts Say Is Likely Unconstitutional
Trump's executive order that would pull legal protections from social networks that "censor" speech is likely unconstitutional, experts say.
variety.com
Even better, it makes Twitter a lot busier
Trump must have shares in them.
Last edited:
So, from everything we've discussed here so far, the president of the United States just broke the First Amendment of the US constitution.Conservatives: "Get the government out of the free market!"
Trump: Here, let me target the private company and platform that hurt my feelings.
Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting Twitter, Facebook That Legal Experts Say Is Likely Unconstitutional
Trump's executive order that would pull legal protections from social networks that "censor" speech is likely unconstitutional, experts say.
The government is now attacking media companies by seeking to remove their funding and to remove the laws that protect them so that the government can get them shut down.
This is laughable. Very entertaining. Keep up the good work America. You have the rest of us in stitches.
Charles Olson
Posts: 79 +45
Oh you mean like the right did during Obama's terms I mean regarding ' burn as many effigies ' !
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
That is how it becomes propaganda.
My wife said, "Trump is doing his best to not get re-elected." I say Go Trump!!!
From that artilce title his EO is Likely Unconstitutional. Some out there tell everyone they support the constitution until they don't. The sad thing about this is that Trump seems to have no clue as to what the constitution legally allows, and the even more sad thing is that Trump having a temper tantrum over this.Conservatives: "Get the government out of the free market!"
Trump: Here, let me target the private company and platform that hurt my feelings.
Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting Twitter, Facebook That Legal Experts Say Is Likely Unconstitutional
Trump's executive order that would pull legal protections from social networks that "censor" speech is likely unconstitutional, experts say.
Trump will never get that the US has not become one of his companies that he rules.
If Trump loses this next election, I bet they will have to take him out of the WH in a straight jacket and the loss will destroy him. His narcissism simply will not let him accept the loss.
Normal conservative folks didn't, racists did, while in 2016 leftists turned several cities into warzones, it was as a group. I get y'all on the left are afraid of loosing your freebies, you need your handouts from people that work for their money.
Look, everyone. Talk about following a CON jobs script. It's a Trumpanzee. Quiet though, you might make him get a thought of his own. CONServative hand puppet.
Do you really want me to break out the red state\blue state map of states with the most reliance on federal funds?
Last edited:
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
There's a fair distribution of left and right protests during 2016. Right protests took over a national wildlife refuge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States#2010–2019
As you liken racists as responsible for the Obama effigies, there are certainly extremist people on the left, too. Unfortunately, each end of the political spectrum has their share of extremists.
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
To me, the interesting thing about this is that back before 1987 a thing called "The Fairness Doctrine" existed. It required the media outlets of the day to give equal time to opposing viewpoints, and its creation was prompted by MacCarthyism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
In this day and age, the Fairness Doctrine might have also applied to sites like Twitter and Facebook.
However, the Reagan administration killed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Their reasoning was that it could infringe on the 1st amendment rights of the businesses to which it applied. Democrats, at the time, wanted to maintain it.
Some out there credit the removal of the fairness doctrine with creating biased news outlets because those outlets are no longer required to give time to opposing viewpoints.
Personally, I would not mind if The Fairness Doctrine was brought back precisely because of the spewed by various news outlets.
For me, it is rather amusing that conservatives killed the Fairness Doctrine and now, essentially, they want it back.
In this day and age, the Fairness Doctrine might have also applied to sites like Twitter and Facebook.
However, the Reagan administration killed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Their reasoning was that it could infringe on the 1st amendment rights of the businesses to which it applied. Democrats, at the time, wanted to maintain it.
Some out there credit the removal of the fairness doctrine with creating biased news outlets because those outlets are no longer required to give time to opposing viewpoints.
Personally, I would not mind if The Fairness Doctrine was brought back precisely because of the
spewed by various news outlets.For me, it is rather amusing that conservatives killed the Fairness Doctrine and now, essentially, they want it back.
If these are the values of Trump and by extension Republicans (or Right wingers or Conservatives or Capitalists or whatever they call themselves these days) then why are they complaining that Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are not fit for purpose? Go create your own competing sites and companies. Show America what true capitalism can achieve. Just don't ally yourselves with Alibaba to do it.
Freddie159
Posts: 162 +100
The problem is if his EO is legal then Twitter may have to outright ban Trump, or start fact checking every single tweet from EVERYONE, to avoid a lawsuit. That would be a nightmare for them and slow down the whole thing and get rid of the 'conversational' nature of Twitter. What Trump did was make things exponentially worse for him IF his EO stands the test in a Court of Law and on Appeal.
Trump uses Twitter because he can, if he can't use it to blast out his ideas and misdirection crap then he thinks he won't be as effective. He thinks this is a HUGE reality show and he's 'winning' in the ratings race, the truth is the more he screams about stupid crap the more 'undecided' voters say NO to Trump and that means he loses in November. Trump won because Hillary was a piece of crap, Biden isn't alot better but for other reasons, with another lady coming forward saying Biden abused his power with her too, the Dems may FINALLY put someone on the ballot who can run head to head with Trump. Remember in the Florida case involving Wasserman-Schultz the DNC Chairman said they have the 'absolute and total authority to put anyone they want on the ballot regardless of what the public thinks or who they vote for'. That statement was asked regarding Hillary Clinton 'buying' her way to the nomnation over Bernie Sanders.
LOL, to show you the proof of a deleted comment? Hahahaha. The whole point of deleting a comment is that you cannot see it. And secondly, you didn't even read what I wrote. I didn't say they "deleted", but "censored". That means the comment is there, and I can see it, but nobody else can.
I could show the proof by opening the same thread on two different computers (say, mine and yours) where on one you'd see the comment, on another you wouldn't.
It's dirty censorship. If it was legitimate censorship, they would say something like: "Your comment has been deleted because of this and this". However, since they have no proper reason other than ideological, they do it in a hidden way. Because they wanna hide their dirty censorship policy from the users. They don't want users start leaving their sites.
So they make the comment "soft-deleted" by enabling the user to see his comment, but nobody else can. Assuming that user would never discover it. This clearly demonstrates they have ideologically based censorship, because it censorship was based on something real they would do it openly and not in this dirty way.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Razer launches $160 Viper V3 Pro gaming mouse with 8,000 Hz polling rate- hahahanoobs replied
-
What should i do?- bruno167573 replied
-
Apple Vision Pro is facing declining interest and sales among consumers- Raytrace3D replied
-
Apple expected to unveil new iPads at upcoming May 7 event- Daniel Sims replied
