Majorie Taylor Greene Thread

  • 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.

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,424
2,757
1,743
47
DFW
Let me be clear in my ask — you have seen what she tweeted …do you agree that her tweet should result in an account suspension?
You shifted the argument to say she could use a data point to argue the virus wasn’t dangerous. I’m saying that is asinine. Now you’re shifting back to whether she should have been suspended. I’ll stick with the previous point until you address it.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,061
2,296
1,743
You shifted the argument to say she could use a data point to argue the virus wasn’t dangerous. I’m saying that is asinine. Now you’re shifting back to whether she should have been suspended. I’ll stick with the previous point until you address it.
My point is not changing at all. As a private entity, I solidly back Twitter’s right to do what they want on their platform (not debating section 230 protections).

That said, Twitter is again showing that they have inconsistent enforcement of what they refer to and categorize as “misinformation”.
I think we all can agree that the amount of misinformation on a daily basis from tweets on Twitter is staggering. But there is a MAJOR difference between purposely distorting and faking information compared to tweeting opinions which may not be favorable to some or even agreeable to the masses.
Yes, MTG is utterly boorish, and a massive embarrassment for the GOP, but she has people that agree with her assessment of “dangerous”. (ie the CBS /YouGov poll). As long as she is not making stuff up, why are people scared of her opinions?

I am getting ready to go to a dinner party. Pretty confident if I asked people if they consider COVID “dangerous” to themselves or younger people, that I will find at least a small group that says no. I am not sure why that is even an argument - polls show a lot of Americans feel that way (CBS/YouGov just released a poll yesterday that less than half of not fully vaccinated people are ”personally concerned” with COVID. Even a good amount of fully vaccinated are not personally concerned).
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,424
2,757
1,743
47
DFW
My point is not changing at all. As a private entity, I solidly back Twitter’s right to do what they want on their platform (not debating section 230 protections).

That said, Twitter is again showing that they have inconsistent enforcement of what they refer to and categorize as “misinformation”.
I think we all can agree that the amount of misinformation on a daily basis from tweets on Twitter is staggering. But there is a MAJOR difference between purposely distorting and faking information compared to tweeting opinions which may not be favorable to some or even agreeable to the masses.
Yes, MTG is utterly boorish, and a massive embarrassment for the GOP, but she has people that agree with her assessment of “dangerous”. (ie the CBS /YouGov poll). As long as she is not making stuff up, why are people scared of her opinions?

I am getting ready to go to a dinner party. Pretty confident if I asked people if they consider COVID “dangerous” to themselves or younger people, that I will find at least a small group that says no. I am not sure why that is even an argument - polls show a lot of Americans feel that way (CBS/YouGov just released a poll yesterday that less than half of not fully vaccinated people are ”personally concerned” with COVID. Even a good amount of fully vaccinated are not personally concerned).
Why do you think I’m scared of someone’s opinion? I don’t think people should get away with fraud. It doesn’t mean I’m scared of pfishing scams. I assume it’s your tactic for taunting folks as you’ve used that phrase a few times without merit.

And if some people think that fraud is fine (in their opinion) it wouldn’t justify scammers perpetuating their fraud. I don’t follow your logic as to why people having an opinion that Covid isn’t dangerous should allow MTG to perpetuate the lie. Then more people believe it, and more people share the lie, and it grows.

You still have not given specific examples of Twitter being inconsistent. I can’t speak to your general statements.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,061
2,296
1,743
@TheMonkey It took me 34 seconds to find these two tweets from today. Both tweets don’t just contain opinions, but purposeful fake information.
https://twitter.com/joshuapotash/status/1417166373072121862?s=21

https://twitter.com/jysexton/status/1417591992188555270?s=21
 
Jul 5, 2020
1,117
240
193
58
Broken Arrow
Even if I concede your points, she’s also ignoring the Delta and Lambda variants, which present greater threat to young, fit, individuals without comorbidities.
A greater “threat” in what specific way? If the threat with COVID, for example, was .10, and now the threat is .20%, it’s certainly an increase, but relative to something already insignificant. Also, I have yet to see any proven data that these variants for that group of people result in: markedly severe symptoms, hospitalizations, or deaths.
 

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,194
356
713
A greater “threat” in what specific way? If the threat with COVID, for example, was .10, and now the threat is .20%, it’s certainly an increase, but relative to something already insignificant. Also, I have yet to see any proven data that these variants for that group of people result in: markedly severe symptoms, hospitalizations, or deaths.
https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/5-things-to-know-delta-variant-covid

Kids and young people are a concern as well. “A recent study from the United Kingdom showed that children and adults under 50 were 2.5 times more likely to become infected with Delta,” says Dr. Yildirim.
 

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,194
356
713
@TheMonkey It took me 34 seconds to find these two tweets from today. Both tweets don’t just contain opinions, but purposeful fake information.
https://twitter.com/joshuapotash/status/1417166373072121862?s=21


https://twitter.com/jysexton/status/1417591992188555270?s=21
maybe they're concentrating on people that are 'in the public eye'?
why people are upset that they are trying to keep politicians from spouting myths/lies/misinformation is beyond me...
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,061
2,296
1,743
Kudos for attaching their policy. If their misinformation policy is limited to COVID, then I was wrong and my two examples above are not examples of potential policy violations.

I do find it interesting that printed in the policy link you provided is a section titled “what is not a violation of policy”. And included in that section is “Strong commentary, opinions, and/or satire, provided these do not contain false or misleading assertions of fact”.

Her tweet now has a Twitter edit that says “This tweet is misleading. Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine for most people”.
Based on that edit by Twitter, my assumption is Twitter suspended her account for the first sentence of her tweet, “The controversial #COVID19 vaccines should not be forced on our military for a virus that is not dangerous for non-obese people and those under 65”. I guess because she called the vaccine controversial.
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2006
4,061
2,296
1,743
maybe they're concentrating on people that are 'in the public eye'?
why people are upset that they are trying to keep politicians from spouting myths/lies/misinformation is beyond me...
Twitter is a private enterprise so censorship and free speech arguments do not specifically apply. But Twitter is now a very common avenue for speech. I agree with Twitter attempting to stop purposeful false statements, harassment, violent threats, and/or lies, but I am 100% against stopping the expression of opinions. We should fight for speech even when we disagree. It’s telling, but unsurprising, when some don’t.
 

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,194
356
713
Twitter is a private enterprise so censorship and free speech arguments do not specifically apply. But Twitter is now a very common avenue for speech. I agree with Twitter attempting to stop purposeful false statements, harassment, violent threats, and/or lies, but I am 100% against stopping the expression of opinions. We should fight for speech even when we disagree. It’s telling, but unsurprising, when some don’t.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...ational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

What Does Free Speech Mean?
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.
The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:
“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”
Freedom of speech includes the right:
  • Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
    West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
  • Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
    Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
  • To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
    Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
  • To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
  • To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
    Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
  • To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
    Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
  • To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
    Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
  • To make or distribute obscene materials.
    Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
  • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
    United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
  • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
    Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
  • Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
    Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
  • Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
    Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

maybe the bold, italicized one above?!
 
Last edited:

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
34,598
10,637
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Maybe Mitch should go talk to MTG cause they are clearly not on the same page and she is one of the Loudest giving the demonstrably bad advice he is talking about . There is like 10-15% of the GOP reps in DC that are NOT on the same page or talking points as the GOP leadership in DC