How Totalitarianism Arrives

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,033
4,283
743
#41
I still don't get this mindset. Who exactly can we vote for? This is why people don't vote, because all we got is either, Trump or Biden (or whoever the Dems replace Biden with). This is also why the system is broken beyond repair, as the right to vote has been reduced to impotence by two conniving political agencies that have no interest in the people, but preserving their respective places of power. Give us back the write-in vote, so I can vote for Mickey Mouse or Smokey the Bear. At least my vote would have meaning then and stand as an act of defiance against this idotic system.
I'm voting for the Libertarian as a protest vote and to contribute to the Libertarian Party getting enough votes to continue to be recognized as a political party in Oklahoma. If the Libertarian Party and other third parties can get a lot more than usual votes, it might serve notice on the two major parties to either shape up or ship out.
I'm sorry, but if you've seen their candidates and their platform they are running on, then you are crazier than I thought. There's no way I'd vote for them. They aren't even trying to be taken seriously this time around.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
13,434
11,213
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
#44
As the judge said on Fox News, what Trump wants to do would be in violation of the Citizens United decision. Corporations like Twitter have free speech, too, like people.

Trump should simply return free speech with more free speech of his own on Twitter by being against Twitter's fact check, if he hasn't already and then move on to his next item of BS, so he can make himself look ridiculous again as president. For his next item of BS, Trump might as well demand to Twitter that it let Alex Jones back on it.
LOL you need to read up on what Trump is doing. Twitter was given certain protections in law because they promoted themselves as an open forum. When they started editing and controlling content they broke their end of the deal. So he is removing the protections they had that were created and reserved for an open forum on the net. They are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt they are not an unbiased open forum.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,519
4,968
1,743
Somewhere
#45
I'm sorry, but if you've seen their candidates and their platform they are running on, then you are crazier than I thought. There's no way I'd vote for them. They aren't even trying to be taken seriously this time around.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Jo Jorgensen is the Libertarian nominee and she is a pretty good candidate, especially in comparison to Biden and Trump: https://hotair.com/archives/taylorm...gensen-wins-libertarian-presidential-primary/

She is pretty pragmatic, and if you don't like her stances, which is a pretty standard libertarian platform, chances are you were never a libertarian to begin with.

Adam Kokesh and Vermin Supreme were the nut job candidates, and neither got close to winning the nomination.
 
Last edited:

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,519
4,968
1,743
Somewhere
#46
LOL you need to read up on what Trump is doing. Twitter was given certain protections in law because they promoted themselves as an open forum. When they started editing and controlling content they broke their end of the deal. So he is removing the protections they had that were created and reserved for an open forum on the net. They are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt they are not an unbiased open forum.
I gotta say it is pretty rich that you started this thread about "How Totalitarianism Arrives", then defend an authoritarian/totalitarian move by the president. AFTER his comments about having total authority. This is how it arrives, when both sides promote it as a means to squash their political rivals. To win at all costs.

I think we are f**ked as a country and we will have less rights in 5 years than we do now.And people like you who only see what the other side is doing are certainly the problem.
 
Last edited:

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
13,434
11,213
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
#48
I gotta say it is pretty rich that you started this thread about "How Totalitarianism Arrives", then defend an authoritarian/totalitarian move by the president. AFTER his comments about having total authority. This is how it arrives, when both sides promote it as a means to squash their political rivals. To win at all costs.

I think we are f**ked as a country and we will have less rights in 5 years than we do now.And people like you are certainly the problem.
All he did was shine a light on an abuse of law that appears to be happening. He did it in a very Trump asshole kind of way, not denying that. Read the law it provides protection from lawsuits to neutral public forums on the net. Twitter may have crossed more than a few lines when they as a company start taking sides in what people post and deleting all sorts of conservative post and kicking conservative commenters off. All While allowing liberal commenters to make death threats against the President and doing nothing. EO was just saying they crossed the line from being a neutral host to becoming a publisher because they are controlling their content in a biased way. Therefore they lose the legal protection of a neutral public host. Courts are going to have to decide if Twitter crossed that line or not. He in now way is interfering with twitters free speech or anything else they decide to do as a company. They have the right to do whatever they choose. But they should loose legal protections reserved for open public forums if they are going to become an editor instead of a host.

I don't get how you can watch Cuomo and the Crazy witch from Michigan trample on their citizens rights and encourage neighbors to snitch on neighbors then get upset about Trump taking up a free speech fight to protect everyone's free speech and call it doctorial.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,519
4,968
1,743
Somewhere
#49
All he did was shine a light on an abuse of law that appears to be happening. He did it in a very Trump asshole kind of way, not denying that. Read the law it provides protection from lawsuits to neutral public forums on the net. Twitter may have crossed more than a few lines when they as a company start taking sides in what people post and deleting all sorts of conservative post and kicking conservative commenters off. All While allowing liberal commenters to make death threats against the President and doing nothing. EO was just saying they crossed the line from being a neutral host to becoming a publisher because they are controlling their content in a biased way. Therefore they lose the legal protection of a neutral public host. Courts are going to have to decide if Twitter crossed that line or not. He in now way is interfering with twitters free speech or anything else they decide to do as a company. They have the right to do whatever they choose. But they should loose legal protections reserved for open public forums if they are going to become an editor instead of a host.

I don't get how you can watch Cuomo and the Crazy witch from Michigan trample on their citizens rights and encourage neighbors to snitch on neighbors then get upset about Trump taking up a free speech fight to protect everyone's free speech and call it doctorial.
You really don't get it don't you? If you don't like twitter, go to another social media platform. A private entity can regulate content on their platform and another, better platform can take it's place who operates in a more impartial manner. That is the free market at work.

Trump is trying to squash dissenting voices, and historically anyone who opposes him. He has tried to do that to the media, he has successfully done that in his cabinet and now he is trying to do that on social media. It is wrong and would significantly damage the 1st amendment, especially long term.

Cuomo and Whitmer are two sides of the same coin as Trump. They all love power and destroying those who stand in their way to exercising it. They may speak differently, but their actions are very similar.

This article has a pretty good breakdown of why both sides are 100% wrong. Government censorship is not free speech, and neither is forced speech/forced private censorship:

Trump executive order retaliates against Twitter, but no one is defending free speech
Where Democrats want to either remove all protections or force private censorship, Trump seems to want to control protections and create a system of government censorship.
Jonathan Turley
Opinion columnist

President Donald Trump’s executive order on social media has left more questions than answers on the ability of the government to regulate companies like Twitter. However, one thing is abundantly clear: the loser in this fight will be free speech. Indeed, the striking thing about this controversy is neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are actually advocating for free speech, just different forms of speech controls. Civil libertarians are faced with the “choice” offered by Henry Ford on colors the for Model T Ford “any color … so long as it is black." In some ways, Trump and Twitter are offering a similar choice on the new model for free speech: Americans can chose between government censorship and private censorship.
The heart of the executive order is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The 1996 legislation signed into law by President Bill Clinton was largely an attempt to regulate pornography and struck down in significant part as unconstitutional. Section 230, however, survived and grants any “interactive computer service” (including Internet and social media companies) immunity from most lawsuits over content posted by users. Courts have interpreted the provision to give sweeping immunity for companies like Twitter and Facebook because they simply supply a forum for others to express themselves.
For years, Democrats leaders have called for companies like Facebook and Twitter to monitor and delete material that they deem offensive, false, or misleading. Former Vice President Joe Biden declared in January, “Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one.” In his view, the mere fact that Twitter is allowing others to speak freely is the same as “propagating falsehoods they know to be false.”
Congressional leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff have called for labeling and removal of material with some members directly threatening a legislative crackdown. This week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for resisting speech monitoring and censorship as a matter of free speech. Pelosi lashed out that those who want to preserve a free speech zone are “all about making money,” ignoring free speech advocates who have no financial interest in these companies. Pelosi said that opposing such monitoring means that social media companies simply want “to make money at the expense of the truth and the facts” and are trying to “hide under the freedom of speech.”


Where Democrats want to either remove all protections or force private censorship, Trump seems to want to control protections and create a system of government censorship. Again, the choice allows citizens to select any option so long as it is censorship.
The 'Big Brother' problem
There are ample reasons why the executive order is unlikely to succeed in any meaningful way. While the scope of Section 230 is largely the result of judicial interpretation, even judges who have criticized the sweeping immunity have concluded that it must be treated as the intent of Congress, which has done nothing to change it. If the administration seeks to change the scope of this law through agency action at the Federal Communications Commission, it will be immediately and legitimately challenged.
Any attempt to unilaterally alter such a federal law is precisely what Republicans objected to in the Obama administration, when the president repeatedly ordered changes denied by the legislative branch. Such circumvention was unconstitutional under Obama and it would be unconstitutional under Trump. President Trump has declared that he will also be seeking legislative changes, a move that could negate some constitutional challenges. However, the elimination of all protection through legislation (as demanded by Biden) would likely trigger greater limits on expression.
More:Trump's social media executive order: Is the Tweeter-in-Chief trying to shut himself up?
The executive order also empowers the Federal Trade Commission to investigate bias in companies like Twitter removing or labeling material. Such investigations may not in themselves be unlawful, but any action taken against companies for their policies on accuracy would raise serious questions of government censorship, the ultimate scourge under the First Amendment.
Ironically, Democrats now defending Twitter are some of the same members who were previously calling for a possible government crackdown. Moreover, these members have long opposed the concept of free speech protections for corporations, recognized in such cases as Citizen’s United. Nevertheless, they would be on good ground to oppose unilateral executive action despite their silence when President Obama engaged in the same circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from immigration to the environment.
The Little Brother problem
The First Amendment is designed to address government restrictions on free speech. As a private entity, Twitter is not the subject of that amendment. However, private companies can still destroy free speech through private censorship. It is called the “Little Brother problem.” President Trump can be chastised for converting a “Little Brother” into a “Big Brother” problem. However, that does alter the fundamental threat to free speech.
What Twitter did on the Trump tweets — adding fact checking links — was wrong. It was intervening on a political statement to inject its views into the communications between President Trump and his roughly 80 million followers. It is precisely what Democrats have demanded for years and what civil libertarians have vehemently opposed.
Twitter is demanding immunity under Section 230 because it merely supplies a forum for the discussion of others. However, it now wants to be an active part of that discussion. Many disagree on the subject of mail-in voting and its potential for fraud. The warnings posted by Twitter (and deletions demanded by Democrats) invites arbitrary and biased monitoring. Twitter has not posted such warnings on the many false statements made about the Russian investigation or the Steele Dossier or other subjects.
Much of our free speech today occurs on private sites like Twitter and Facebook. The Democrats want private companies to censor or label statements deemed misleading. Such a system would evade First Amendment conflict but it would have an even greater likely impact on free speech than direct government monitoring.
Social media has long been one of the few areas of free and robust speech. While Trump and his critics are now in a fierce battle over the Twitter controversy, it is largely a battle over control of speech, not a battle for free speech. What is striking is how we have all become chumps in rooting for one side or the other when both would curtail our ability to speak freely on social media. It is like being offered the Matrix choice of a blue and red pill, but both leave you in Matrix.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...xecutive-order-free-speech-column/5278725002/
 
Feb 7, 2007
912
165
1,593
Denver
#50
All he did was shine a light on an abuse of law that appears to be happening. He did it in a very Trump asshole kind of way, not denying that. Read the law it provides protection from lawsuits to neutral public forums on the net. Twitter may have crossed more than a few lines when they as a company start taking sides in what people post and deleting all sorts of conservative post and kicking conservative commenters off. All While allowing liberal commenters to make death threats against the President and doing nothing. EO was just saying they crossed the line from being a neutral host to becoming a publisher because they are controlling their content in a biased way. Therefore they lose the legal protection of a neutral public host. Courts are going to have to decide if Twitter crossed that line or not. He in now way is interfering with twitters free speech or anything else they decide to do as a company. They have the right to do whatever they choose. But they should loose legal protections reserved for open public forums if they are going to become an editor instead of a host.

I don't get how you can watch Cuomo and the Crazy witch from Michigan trample on their citizens rights and encourage neighbors to snitch on neighbors then get upset about Trump taking up a free speech fight to protect everyone's free speech and call it doctorial.
If Cuomo and Whitmer are trampling on peoples rights what are Dewine (OH) and Hogan (MD) doing that is so different to not warrant a mention from you?
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,567
2,286
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
#51
LOL you need to read up on what Trump is doing. Twitter was given certain protections in law because they promoted themselves as an open forum. When they started editing and controlling content they broke their end of the deal. So he is removing the protections they had that were created and reserved for an open forum on the net. They are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt they are not an unbiased open forum.
No, you and NotONTV are all out WRONG and need to know about Section 230 and what the co-creator of it quite recently said:

“I have warned for years that this administration was threatening 230 in order to chill speech and bully companies like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter into giving him favorable treatment. Today Trump proved me right. I expect those companies, and every American who participates in online speech, to resist this illegal act by all possible means. Giving in to bullying by this president may be the single most unpatriotic act an American could undertake.

As the co-author of Section 230, let me make this clear: There is nothing in the law about political neutrality. It does not say companies like Twitter are forced to carry misinformation about voting, especially from the president. Efforts to erode Section 230 will only make online content more likely to be false and dangerous.” Sen. Ron Wyden - The other author, Christopher Cox is a Republican.
 
Last edited:

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,519
4,968
1,743
Somewhere
#52
If Cuomo and Whitmer are trampling on peoples rights what are Dewine (OH) and Hogan (MD) doing that is so different to not warrant a mention from you?
Cause they are on team red. Its just like rooting for your sports team to some.

Maybe I should change my strategy: the dems are the sooners, and baylor is the republicans. If they meet in the CCG, we root for the meteor, right?
 
Last edited:

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
13,434
11,213
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
#53
You really don't get it don't you? If you don't like twitter, go to another social media platform. A private entity can regulate content on their platform and another, better platform can take it's place who operates in a more impartial manner. That is the free market at work.

Trump is trying to squash dissenting voices, and historically anyone who opposes him. He has tried to do that to the media, he has successfully done that in his cabinet and now he is trying to do that on social media. It is wrong and would significantly damage the 1st amendment, especially long term.

Cuomo and Whitmer are two sides of the same coin as Trump. They all love power and destroying those who stand in their way to exercising it. They may speak differently, but their actions are very similar.

This article has a pretty good breakdown of why both sides are 100% wrong. Government censorship is not free speech, and neither is forced speech/forced private censorship:

Trump executive order retaliates against Twitter, but no one is defending free speech
Where Democrats want to either remove all protections or force private censorship, Trump seems to want to control protections and create a system of government censorship.
Jonathan Turley
Opinion columnist

President Donald Trump’s executive order on social media has left more questions than answers on the ability of the government to regulate companies like Twitter. However, one thing is abundantly clear: the loser in this fight will be free speech. Indeed, the striking thing about this controversy is neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are actually advocating for free speech, just different forms of speech controls. Civil libertarians are faced with the “choice” offered by Henry Ford on colors the for Model T Ford “any color … so long as it is black." In some ways, Trump and Twitter are offering a similar choice on the new model for free speech: Americans can chose between government censorship and private censorship.
The heart of the executive order is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The 1996 legislation signed into law by President Bill Clinton was largely an attempt to regulate pornography and struck down in significant part as unconstitutional. Section 230, however, survived and grants any “interactive computer service” (including Internet and social media companies) immunity from most lawsuits over content posted by users. Courts have interpreted the provision to give sweeping immunity for companies like Twitter and Facebook because they simply supply a forum for others to express themselves.
For years, Democrats leaders have called for companies like Facebook and Twitter to monitor and delete material that they deem offensive, false, or misleading. Former Vice President Joe Biden declared in January, “Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one.” In his view, the mere fact that Twitter is allowing others to speak freely is the same as “propagating falsehoods they know to be false.”
Congressional leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff have called for labeling and removal of material with some members directly threatening a legislative crackdown. This week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for resisting speech monitoring and censorship as a matter of free speech. Pelosi lashed out that those who want to preserve a free speech zone are “all about making money,” ignoring free speech advocates who have no financial interest in these companies. Pelosi said that opposing such monitoring means that social media companies simply want “to make money at the expense of the truth and the facts” and are trying to “hide under the freedom of speech.”


Where Democrats want to either remove all protections or force private censorship, Trump seems to want to control protections and create a system of government censorship. Again, the choice allows citizens to select any option so long as it is censorship.
The 'Big Brother' problem
There are ample reasons why the executive order is unlikely to succeed in any meaningful way. While the scope of Section 230 is largely the result of judicial interpretation, even judges who have criticized the sweeping immunity have concluded that it must be treated as the intent of Congress, which has done nothing to change it. If the administration seeks to change the scope of this law through agency action at the Federal Communications Commission, it will be immediately and legitimately challenged.
Any attempt to unilaterally alter such a federal law is precisely what Republicans objected to in the Obama administration, when the president repeatedly ordered changes denied by the legislative branch. Such circumvention was unconstitutional under Obama and it would be unconstitutional under Trump. President Trump has declared that he will also be seeking legislative changes, a move that could negate some constitutional challenges. However, the elimination of all protection through legislation (as demanded by Biden) would likely trigger greater limits on expression.
More:Trump's social media executive order: Is the Tweeter-in-Chief trying to shut himself up?
The executive order also empowers the Federal Trade Commission to investigate bias in companies like Twitter removing or labeling material. Such investigations may not in themselves be unlawful, but any action taken against companies for their policies on accuracy would raise serious questions of government censorship, the ultimate scourge under the First Amendment.
Ironically, Democrats now defending Twitter are some of the same members who were previously calling for a possible government crackdown. Moreover, these members have long opposed the concept of free speech protections for corporations, recognized in such cases as Citizen’s United. Nevertheless, they would be on good ground to oppose unilateral executive action despite their silence when President Obama engaged in the same circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from immigration to the environment.
The Little Brother problem
The First Amendment is designed to address government restrictions on free speech. As a private entity, Twitter is not the subject of that amendment. However, private companies can still destroy free speech through private censorship. It is called the “Little Brother problem.” President Trump can be chastised for converting a “Little Brother” into a “Big Brother” problem. However, that does alter the fundamental threat to free speech.
What Twitter did on the Trump tweets — adding fact checking links — was wrong. It was intervening on a political statement to inject its views into the communications between President Trump and his roughly 80 million followers. It is precisely what Democrats have demanded for years and what civil libertarians have vehemently opposed.
Twitter is demanding immunity under Section 230 because it merely supplies a forum for the discussion of others. However, it now wants to be an active part of that discussion. Many disagree on the subject of mail-in voting and its potential for fraud. The warnings posted by Twitter (and deletions demanded by Democrats) invites arbitrary and biased monitoring. Twitter has not posted such warnings on the many false statements made about the Russian investigation or the Steele Dossier or other subjects.
Much of our free speech today occurs on private sites like Twitter and Facebook. The Democrats want private companies to censor or label statements deemed misleading. Such a system would evade First Amendment conflict but it would have an even greater likely impact on free speech than direct government monitoring.
Social media has long been one of the few areas of free and robust speech. While Trump and his critics are now in a fierce battle over the Twitter controversy, it is largely a battle over control of speech, not a battle for free speech. What is striking is how we have all become chumps in rooting for one side or the other when both would curtail our ability to speak freely on social media. It is like being offered the Matrix choice of a blue and red pill, but both leave you in Matrix.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...xecutive-order-free-speech-column/5278725002/
I totally get it. I also get Trump was talking out his ass. He does that a lot. When twitter started altering peoples tweets they crossed a line and should lose those legal protections an open forum gets.

The law is already on the books this is nothing new. They are simply going to define in court what actions make a company loose protections. Twitter is free to rebrand themselves as a leftist utopia that doesn't accept conservative views and enjoy protections. Right up until they start altering what people are posting or violate their own community standards and terms of service. Then they become publishers and fall under different laws and standards. At least that is the argument being made.

Most of what's being published is typical over the top hyperbole. If they go in and try to regulate where twitter can't change their terms of service and community standards and enforce them then we have a problem.
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
13,434
11,213
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
#54
If Cuomo and Whitmer are trampling on peoples rights what are Dewine (OH) and Hogan (MD) doing that is so different to not warrant a mention from you?
They sound kind of like little tyrants also. But Michigan and Cali hands down hold the title for tyranny during a crisis closely followed by NY and NJ.

Colorado has been pretty fair about it with their democratic leadership. In the end it's the people in the states where the Governors are dragging it out that are going to pay the price and loose their livelihoods and businesses over this. Then they can flee or go to the ballot box and fix the problem.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,033
4,283
743
#56
I'm sorry, but if you've seen their candidates and their platform they are running on, then you are crazier than I thought. There's no way I'd vote for them. They aren't even trying to be taken seriously this time around.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Jo Jorgensen is the Libertarian nominee and she is a pretty good candidate, especially in comparison to Biden and Trump: https://hotair.com/archives/taylorm...gensen-wins-libertarian-presidential-primary/

She is pretty pragmatic, and if you don't like her stances, which is a pretty standard libertarian platform, chances are you were never a libertarian to begin with.

Adam Kokesh and Vermin Supreme were the nut job candidates, and neither got close to winning the nomination.
Well, I only saw information about Supreme and Kokesh. I'll have to look up the other person.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,567
2,286
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
#57
I totally get it. I also get Trump was talking out his ass. He does that a lot. When twitter started altering peoples tweets they crossed a line and should lose those legal protections an open forum gets.

The law is already on the books this is nothing new. They are simply going to define in court what actions make a company loose protections. Twitter is free to rebrand themselves as a leftist utopia that doesn't accept conservative views and enjoy protections. Right up until they start altering what people are posting or violate their own community standards and terms of service. Then they become publishers and fall under different laws and standards. At least that is the argument being made.

Most of what's being published is typical over the top hyperbole. If they go in and try to regulate where twitter can't change their terms of service and community standards and enforce them then we have a problem.
Twitter most certainly did not alter anything in Trump's tweet. It merely added a message to it in its exercise of freedom of speech. I sure don't want the government deciding what if anything needs added to Trump's tweets. So don't forget Twitter has freedom of speech just like people do. In reflection of that very fact, what Twitter did was decided by a committee, not solely by an individual.

NO doubt about it, if Twitter was doing nothing but dumping liberals and fact checking them, you absolutely wouldn't be complaining about what Twitter was doing. Neither would NotOnTV.

People are so ignorant and idiotic about the situation that they are blaming the wrong person from Twitter who fact checked Trump's tweet. While it was done by committee, head Jack Dorsey has claimed responsibility for it. Trump respects him about as much as a young kid still in high school.
 
Last edited:

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
13,434
11,213
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
#58
Twitter most certainly did not alter anything in Trump's tweet. It merely added a message to it in its exercise of freedom of speech. I sure don't want the government deciding what if anything needs added to Trump's tweets. So don't forget Twitter has freedom of speech just like people do. In reflection of that very fact, what Twitter did was decided by a committee, not solely by an individual.

NO doubt about it, if Twitter was doing nothing but dumping liberals and fact checking them, you absolutely wouldn't be complaining about what Twitter was doing. Neither would NotOnTV.

People are so ignorant and idiotic about the situation that they are blaming the wrong person from Twitter who fact checked Trump's tweet. While it was done by committee, head Jack Dorsey has claimed responsibility for it. Trump respects him about as much as a young kid still in high school.
No one is arguing about twitter having freedom of speech. The question is are they going beyond what the law allows to give them protections.