• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elon Musk says Trump to be "reinstated" to Twitter

Trump was a president for the people. For America and not for Mexico or other countries who take advantage of our generosity.
No, my friend. Trump became president unexpectedly. He then proceeded to find every loophole, starting with ignoring the Emoluments Clause, so that he could profit off the presidency, to evading accountability with the aid of other amoral Republicans. So, there you go. He is or never was, "for America". Trump will always be just for himself.
 
Trump wasn't there. So, you're going to use a spontaneous trespassing that happened two years ago forever? Can we use the months of riots by the left then to say all Democrats are rioters?

How many people threatened election workers? Where was this? Any arrests?

So, if someone has an opinion that a guy who stayed in his basement didn't really win, that is a false narrative? Especially with all the irregularities and no signature of address confirmations and mail boxes placed in Democrat areas that went unmonitored?
Trump was pushing it, lol.

And yes, it is a false narrative and there's never been any evidence of "election fraud". It's just a conspiracy theory losers push to defend their loser Dear Leader.
 
That depends on if what it finds appropriate depends on political perspective, and not objective standards. Being opposed to pornography, vulgarity is one thing. Censoring political opinion on a discussion board called "Debate Politics" would be rather counterintuitive and contrary to free speech. If people are going to debate politics, then all sides of a political discussion should be permitted. We should also be permitted to debate things like fascism, Nazism, communism, socialism, Marxism, anarchism, and anything else, and that would include the "pro" side to those debates. The forum would be within its rights to censor whatever it wants, of course, but it would not be rational to call it supportive of free speech if it said "we can d
yes, it is
just like twitter
then and now


So what? Maybe he'll make it all back.
that's the way it works. it's his platform, it's his rules one must abide by to participate

but the earlier question was about the "harm" caused by tRump via twitter
and it was shown, in one example, that there is a relationship with tRump's J6 tweets to the traitors and their "hang mike pence" retort
there is no way one is unable to miss that harm resulting from tRump's inappropriate tweets
i could go on, but there is inadequate bandwidth to encompass all of tRump's similar misdeeds
 
I'm going to make it really simple for you: My idea of democracy is respecting our over 250-year-old institutions which includes accepting the results of elections and promoting the orderly transfer of power. Our party, as it stands fights against our institutions, not for any philosophical reason, but for the purpose of clutching to power.

And I honestly don't care how you choose to label me.
I label you a never Trumper because you don't like his personality. A person who firmly believes the election was rigged as do I would be weak to say otherwise. NOTHING to see HERE, folks.

1669040416482.png
 
I label you a never Trumper because you don't like his personality. A person who firmly believes the election was rigged as do I would be weak to say otherwise. NOTHING to see HERE, folks.

View attachment 67424121
We're just not going to agree on much. We both have very strong opinions, regarding Trump and Trumpism. I'm certain we can agree on that.
 
[emphasis added by bubba]

it would appear you are of the opinion it should be found acceptable to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre
It would appear that you are of opinion on which Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes based his loathesome court decision in Schenck v United States.

What Holmes decided in that case was that a person publishing anti-war pamphlets during World War One (in Yiddish) which protested the draft was the same as "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a panic." The United States' entry into the First World War had caused deep divisions in society, and was vigorously opposed, especially by those on the left, who would protest the administration of the draft, protest the entry of the US into that colonial war.

Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were members of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia, of which Schenck was General Secretary. The executive committee authorized, and Schenck oversaw, printing and mailing more than 15,000 fliers to men slated for conscription during World War I. The fliers urged men not to submit to the draft, saying "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your rights", "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain," and urged men not to comply with the draft on the grounds that military conscription constituted involuntary servitude. They were convicted, and appealed to SCOTUS, which ruled that publishing anti-war and anti-draft publications was just like falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, because it could interfere with the ability of the US to draft people to go fight in a war - a war started in Sebia because a Serbian freedom fighter shot an heir to a tyrannical despot of a the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which then invaded Serbia, which was then invaded by another colonial empire (Russia), which was then aided by its colonial empire ally (Germany) which was then attacked by two other colonial empires (France and the UK).....

And that is what you support - you support something being considered "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" which is not that. Trump contesting an election, or rallying his supporters to protest and demonstrate against their opponents is NOT "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater." It is political speech, and political speech is free speech in this country.

That is why Schenk and it's "fire in a crowded theater" analogy to political speech was overruled in the 1960s. by Brandenburg v Ohio ("cross burning") and cases like Cohen v California ("**** the draft"). The test is no longer "clear and present danger" or "fire in a crowded theater," which were found not to be appropriate because they silenced political speech under the rubric of "danger" and the "harm" you chirp about. Brandenburg v Ohio limited the scope of speech which can be prosecuted to that which would be directed to AND likely to incite imminent lawless action. That first part is crucial - the speaker must be saying something which the speaker "directs to...inciting imminent lawless action," AND which is "likely to incite" that lawless action. Trump talking about decertification of elections and the VP not certifying the results is political speech and it does not call for any lawless action. The fact that a listener hears things about improper elections or allegations of fraud and then gets pissed off and does something wrong doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't have a right to talk about it.
 
I'm going to make it really simple for you: My idea of democracy is respecting our over 250-year-old institutions which includes accepting the results of elections and promoting the orderly transfer of power. Our party, as it stands fights against our institutions, not for any philosophical reason, but for the purpose of clutching to power.

And I honestly don't care how you choose to label me.

Accepting loss is a cornerstone of democracy.
 
We're just not going to agree on much. We both have very strong opinions, regarding Trump and Trumpism. I'm certain we can agree on that.
Here is the link to my post as the PDf can't be posted here. If anyone still thinks he had no beef after reading this, I don't know what to say.

 
No, my friend. Trump became president unexpectedly. He then proceeded to find every loophole, starting with ignoring the Emoluments Clause, so that he could profit off the presidency, to evading accountability with the aid of other amoral Republicans. So, there you go. He is or never was, "for America". Trump will always be just for himself.

If Trump was really for America, he would have manufactured his cheesy products in this country instead of in Asian sweatshops. I remember when David Letterman asked him years ago if he ever planned to build a manufacturing plant in this country to give Americans jobs, and he laughed.

His supporters are ignorant if they think the man is about America. The man is only about himself. Always was, always will be.
 
Trump was pushing it, lol.

And yes, it is a false narrative and there's never been any evidence of "election fraud". It's just a conspiracy theory losers push to defend their loser Dear Leader.
Here ya go.

No excerpt because it is a PDF


 
yes, it is
just like twitter
then and now
Sure, but being within one's rights doesn't mean one is acting rightly. Then, Twitter was not acting rightly. So far, it is acting rightly now.
that's the way it works. it's his platform, it's his rules one must abide by to participate
Sure, and if he starts being biased in favor of one side or the other, then I will exercise my right to object to what he's doing.
but the earlier question was about the "harm" caused by tRump via twitter
and it was shown, in one example, that there is a relationship with tRump's J6 tweets to the traitors and their "hang mike pence" retort
there is no way one is unable to miss that harm resulting from tRump's inappropriate tweets
i could go on, but there is inadequate bandwidth to encompass all of tRump's similar misdeeds
Here is why Twitter banned Trump https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension

Twitter is making leaps of logic when it says that Trump announcing that he will not attend the inauguration was being received by some as confirmation that Trunp thinks the election was illegitimate. Twitter then says Trump is doing something wrong by saying his 75,000,000 voters will have a giant voice into the future and will not be disrespected, etc.

That, says Twitter, is incitement to violence.

If you cannot see how bullshit that is, then you aren't thinking logically.

It doesn't matter that some of Trump's supporters went bananas and started chanting "hang mike pence." First of all, there is literally nothing wrong with chanting "hang" some politician or other. it's been done for hundreds of years. Democrats brought guillotines to anti-Trump rallies and pretended to behead him. They burned him in effigy. Madonna "dreamed of blowing up the white house." Democrats called for "unrest in the streets" and comment after comment for years which "incited" their supporters to conduct protests where violent acts occurrd.
 
It's amazing how upset the left gets when faced with the concept that they can curate their own Twitter experience, but not everyone else's....

Mute Trump and it's like this never happened.

If your response is that it's still a problem because other people could follow Trump then you are the authoritarian.
 
As opposed to almost every other politician?

Why the focus on what he "admits?" He lost. He left on January 21, 2021. That's the reality. He doesn't have to "admit."

Alternative facts are what politics is based on. The idea that Democrats peddle truth, and Trump peddles alternative facts, is laughable in the extreme.

All of them lie.

You're just putting us back in the hands of the biggest liars of the past 60 years. We have been owned by a machine for the last 60+ years, and they don't care about you or me at all, and they are lying pieces of shit and war criminals. Think of every war we've been involved in for the last 62 years -- almost every one was fomented and based on lies. The one notable exception MIGHT be Afghanistan in 2001 -- and ONLY for the first year, max. After that, it was a big load of bullshit.

Every other war we've been involved in for the past 62 years, starting with the falsified Gulf of Tonkin incident which caused 60,000 American soldiers' deaths and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese deaths, in a decade's long war crime, and running through various coups, trumped up national security risks, faked casus belli, etc. The people that want to "get back to" honor and trust in politics aren't thinking clearly. As bad as Trump was, he's a piker compared to the war criminals of the last 60 years.

Good politicians try to win. If they don't win, they concede the loss for the good of Democracy and for the good of the United States of America. Spreading lies hurts our country. Admitting loss is patriotic and loyal to America. It lets us get on with self government as it was meant to be.

Politics involves lying because politics is a reflection of We, The People; and people lie. That's the real world we live in. The super-rich have outsized power and influence over government and both parties because corruption is legal in America. We, The People, can fix that. I believe we will. The method has already been recognized and begun; and it will work because it has worked before on several issues.

Making corruption illegal will not come from the top down. It has to originate with ordinary citizens making it an issue. Just like people made women's suffrage an issue. Just like people made beginning and ending prohibition an issue. Just like is currently happening with marijuana legalization. It takes time. That has gone form Reagan's zero-tolerance to now 21 States have legalized recreational. One day it will be federal.

Women's suffrage took so long that many who strove for it never lived to see it. Things that are worth while take time.

We make corruption illegal by beginning locally. Ask your city, town and county council candidates if they are in favor or in opposition of corruption. Only a fool would say they are in favor. Hold them to task. Force them to create local anti-corruption laws. There is model legislation. This has already been done in Tallahassee, Florida. Now, we need more municipalities to copy that. After enough do, it can go to the State level, and when there are enough States, it can pass at the federal level.

Just like legalized pot. Just like prohibition. Just like Women's suffrage. This is our issue of the day.

We just have to make it an issue. Corporations and the greedy powerful are not going to help.

Or we could say it is hopeless and give up.

I think we need to make it an issue. There are more of us with average wealth than the few with extraordinary wealth and the ability to 'own' the government. We need to take back our government for We, The People. January 6th isn't how to do it. Call your city and county council members. Talk it up. We Americans got work to do. We have to carry the torch that was lit in 1776. A lot of people gave a lot so we can have what we have. Some gave all. We owe it to them and to those who will come after us.

Don't just complain. Do Something! This is not a partisan issue.
 
I have hardly ever seen a more over-exaggerated narrative than the one about Trump's supposedly "harmful" tweets. Another completely manufactured outrage.
You should be happy. Trump brought manufacturing back to the US.
 
Now all of a sudden it's the Twit Zone, LOL. The hypocrisy of the Left, and the fatalism of one single social media company going toward the center, away of the communist left of other extremist social media sites. OMG, the world is over. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The best part of this isn't whether Trump rejoins; it's the exploding heads on the Left whether he rejoins of not. Love it.
Its full of fake news

You wouldn't catch me with an account

But hey

You are the purveyor of fake news
 
If Trump was really for America, he would have manufactured his cheesy products in this country instead of in Asian sweatshops. I remember when David Letterman asked him years ago if he ever planned to build a manufacturing plant in this country to give Americans jobs, and he laughed.

His supporters are ignorant if they think the man is about America. The man is only about himself. Always was, always will be.
I also feel if Trump was really for America, he would not have attacked it and tried to murder his political enemies. I think that, alone, should be a "red flag" Trump just doesn't love us so much!
 
1. If Mr. Trump is allowed back on Twitter, a lot of liberals are going to be very, very, very angry -- especially since Mr. Trump will be able to gainsay the Special Prosecutor.
You can't be serious.
2. Liberals have a lot of influence throughout corporate America.

a. I am 100% computer illiterate, but I have just read that Google and Apple may be pressured by activists into dropping Twitter. (Whatever that means!)

3, Now it is perfectly true that there are limits to freedom of speech. There are certain things that people should not be allowed to say.

a. But it was unfair -- IMHO -- to suspend Mr. Trump simply because he questioned the honesty of the 2020 election.

b. Dems, of course, feel that it was too dangerous to let a sitting President question the honesty of our electoral process. (I do agree that he could have used a more nuanced approach.)
 
LOL - it's cute you think the Democratic Party is "generous."

The US doesn'thave generosity, and neither does any other country. The US uses foreign aid as a tool of politics and global strategy. It's not a charity. And, the Democrats don't act any differently, because both parties are owned by the same people.
Alright, you do not need to be talking about me at all. It takes two to have a polite conversation. I insist we keep things respectful between us. If that doesn't happen I will cut it off.

Now, we can fix our corrupt government but that is going to take positive attitudes, a very long period of time, and a lot of dedication by people who realize we the people have the power to do that. We are either part of the solution or part of the problem. Sitting on the sideline eminating negativity will not fix corruption. Criticizing the powers to be for not changing the system which benefits them is not going to do it either. Congress is not going to make corruption illegal until we force them to do it. We can actually do that. We have the power.
 
Sure, but being within one's rights doesn't mean one is acting rightly. Then, Twitter was not acting rightly. So far, it is acting rightly now.

Sure, and if he starts being biased in favor of one side or the other, then I will exercise my right to object to what he's doing.

Here is why Twitter banned Trump https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension

Twitter is making leaps of logic when it says that Trump announcing that he will not attend the inauguration was being received by some as confirmation that Trunp thinks the election was illegitimate. Twitter then says Trump is doing something wrong by saying his 75,000,000 voters will have a giant voice into the future and will not be disrespected, etc.

That, says Twitter, is incitement to violence.

If you cannot see how bullshit that is, then you aren't thinking logically.

It doesn't matter that some of Trump's supporters went bananas and started chanting "hang mike pence." First of all, there is literally nothing wrong with chanting "hang" some politician or other. it's been done for hundreds of years. Democrats brought guillotines to anti-Trump rallies and pretended to behead him. They burned him in effigy. Madonna "dreamed of blowing up the white house." Democrats called for "unrest in the streets" and comment after comment for years which "incited" their supporters to conduct protests where violent acts occurrd.
I saw an interesting guest speaker this morning who opined that Elon stopped developing emotionally at age 11 and now we have a kid in charge of an international media platform.

He also said something that resonated with me. That so many powerful people turned a blind eye to the propaganda shoveled by Trumpworld over the past 6 years because the benefit from it. When people know the truth, it's harder for powerful people to "cut corners". A great example is where the World Cup is being held, Qatar. So much human abuse has and still is going on there, but FIFA got their million-dollar bribes, so: "Oh well".

Keeping people in the dark or telling them the opposite of what you're doing is a way to operate Nefariously.
 
Back
Top Bottom