• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Trump asks U.S. judge to force Twitter to restart his account

With whom would Twitter prefer to associate.

Ah yes, splitting infinitives and prepositions is never recommended.

But, originally, (you'll have to track back in the conversation) it was a prepositional clause, and '....of with whom....' would have been awkward. He did okay there, except for 'who' being in the wrong case, and I responded in kind, syntactically speaking.
 
Well, here is what I say: I think it is far more true that the factions that opposed Trump did everything in their power to gin up Donald Trump as an agent of evil.

This effort was simply extraordinary.

My view is that in much Progressive/Left praxis the object is to provoke divisions that are exploited for political purposes.

Well, now, we can thank providence you made it clear it was your view, and not some kind of broad swipe allegation deserving axiom status.


Excuse the reference to The Saul Alinsky Playbook but these are important elements in social activism praxis.

Everyone exacerbated everything, deliberately.

And it is also true as Bannon said that the purpose of his activities was to ‘hold torches’ to people and exploit events.


Ahhh, the old 'Saul Alinsky' argument, the guy the right loves to hate, who tend to use his methods in their approach to the left, interestingly enough,.

So, what, you're going to trot out all that old baggage?

Bannon was, like Trump, a merchant of chaos. "in my view'.
 
LOL, they went before Congress and assured they would not ban based on political speech. This is binding when you say it on camera.

I have now asked some of you to demonstrate how it was inciting violence, no one is making any sort of honest attempt.

Whether or not it is fact matters not in this case, SM has the right to exclude anyone they deem as unfit under their TOS.

But, my take on it:

He has been accusing democrats of stealing the election, without any basis in fact, or evidence, noting that he started doing it many months before the first ballot was cast, thus proving that it was not 'evidence' that so caused him to do this, it was a scheme to subvert the election. This is the first president in history to accuse his opponents of stealing/rigging the election.

By doing this, he has single handedly undermined confidence in the election, and to that extent, has damaged democracy itself. Every election has irregularities, and isolated examples of individuals cheating, but it never amounts to more than a few, and it always involved members of both parties. These do not prove the charge that 'Democrats rigged the election', but Trump knew that his fans would not be able to make that distinction, that they would believe his every word and thus Trump, in some 65 million people, and destroyed confidence in the election. It will take a long time for America to heal, it won't heal as long as Trump is fanning the flames of lies inspiring hatred of democrats.

His objective was to destroy confidence in the election to his fan base and in statehouses where republicans control the election apparatus in the hopes they would toss out Biden electors and replace with Trump electors.

Government officials currently are testifying in congress how he has repeatedly and persistently attempted to get the DOJ AG Rosen to announce the election was corrupt, so that he could pressure states to toss out Biden's electors. This scheme is being testified to by more than one official, not to mention we have recordings of this scheme in GA ( where he is being investigated for criminal activity in GA by the GA AG ).

This scheme was furthered by over 60 lawsuits, all of which no evidence to prove Trump's charge that 'Democrats stole the election' has withstood court scrutiny.

In the furtherance of this scheme Trump whipped up his base with cries of 'Democrats stole the election", staring months before 1/6 and up to 1/6, and has inculcated hatred of democrats to such a degree, like a volcano, that anger erupted into a juggernaut on Jan 6., where cries of 'Stop The Steal" were repeated over and over and over again, with malice on their minds, they also chanted 'hang Mike Pence". Trump attempted to stop the Congress's constitutional duty to count the state's vote and thus finalize the certification of the election, or at least delay it so, in the interim, he could pressure more states to toss out Biden's electors and replace them with his own.

Therefore, on 1/6, the overall 'riot' was due, ultimately, to the continuous incendiary acts, comments, mentions, speeches, on 1/6, and going back many months of which the predominant message was 'democrats stole the election' and that lie began before the first ballot was cast, inculcated in the minds and hearts of his follows long and hard, to such an extent, that it caused a welling up of a juggernaut of rage & hate, and erupted in volcanic fashion on 1/6, resulting in several deaths and millions of worth of property damaged, some property stolen, and trespassing of the offices of congresspersons and senators and the terrorizing of persons thereby, and the delay of several hours of the constitutional proceedings.


The point is, those who are asking for explicit speech on 1/6 are missing the larger picture. Heck, mafioso commit murders without so much mentioning the crime committed, so explicit speech is not required, Deeds, acts, speeches, over a period of time, creating a juggernaut of hate equals 'incitation of insurrection' 'seditious conspiracy' etc.
 
You clearly can't either. They stated plainly they would not suspend or ban for political speech, then they did so. This act is a breach of verbal contract. Its going to be extremely easy to show both harm and the nature of the verbal promise.

If you make a promise before Congress but don't amend your TOS to reflect this, it could be construed you intended to breach this verbal agreement and didn't act in good faith in the first place.


Incitation of violence to a degree posing a threat to US national security is not 'political speech'.

Lot's of people making political comments on SM are not being banned.
 
Very well. So Twitter could, with no repercussions, ban Blacks or Jews? Or say homosexuals?

I think that you are wrong, obviously. I think that civil legal issues certainly pertain on Twitter and similar platforms.

There is an additional complexity here too: we are speaking about US law and Constitution. Twitter, FB and YouTube are transnational ….

Each country has specific rules.
Bullshit. They could ban blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Presbyterians, vegans or anyone else if they violate the terms of service. This is not a civil rights or a free speech issue, much as you would like it to be.
 
Twitter had the right to ban Trump without any reason.

Twitter actually gave a reason.

Whether it was a good reason or not is debatable. I think it was a good reason. However, the quality of the reason doesn't matter as far as Twitter's legal right to ban Trump.

The First Amendment protects Twitter from being forced to associate with Trump.



And we're back to how sad it is that so many Americans are longing to have someone back in office who doesn't know or care about the Constitution.
 
Political speech does not = violence, incitement to violence or illegal action, hate, lies, etc. There can be overlap of course...but they're not the same. There are distinctions.

Causing people to hate sufficient to attack the capital via speech is not 'political speech'.
 
LOL so many people that just refuse to read any argument I have made. There is in fact no law at the heart of this issue. Its about them making commitments before congress to maintain the status quo on their legal market advantage or having input on changes while making no changes to their TOS and acting in bad faith after the hearings were over.

Note: I have made this clear to no less than 6 of you uninformed posters. Do just a little research ffs.

There commitments to congress has nothing to do with contract (TOS) violations.
 
Except they go in front of congress and the entire US and state they are neutral and entirely committed to political speech. So in which part are they lying? Which argument is subjective and which objective?

Its objective to say that Dorsey and Zuck made promises they NEVER intended to keep or they would have altered their ToS.

Incitation of violence is not political speech.
 
Ok-- if Twitter wishes to ban Trump because they dont like what he has to say, the consequences they should face is loss of sec 230 protections from liability from what they do permit to be posted on their site.

They didn't ban Trump because they 'didn't like what he said' which implies an innocuous viewpoint, political point of view, etc..

They banned him because inciting and glorifying violence is a TOS violation.
 
It would seem like Twitter is acting like a jackass--- restricting that which they do not like while claiming protection from liability from that which they do like

No, excluding speech that leads to violence is not being a jackass, but supporting it is.
 
Of course they do. Look up 'oral contract' with the Google and see what's required for an enforceable contract. I quoted the basics...... Offer, acceptance, consideration. You need all three to create a contract, oral or written. And the offer needs to be specific enough so that the parties, and any court, can all agree on the exact terms, what's required of the parties. And if "Congress" agrees not to act if Twitter does X then someone has to have the authority to bind Congress, and that person does not exist. Votes of Congress bind congress, not promises of one or 12 or even 50 of 435 members. And Jack of Twitter cannot bind the rest of the internet, only Jack, but the legislation if any would affect all of the internet, and the "internet" would have to agree to the terms Jack did, and no one authorized Jack to bind them in this agreement with "Congress."

I'll quit responding on this because you just don't know what you're talking about, and are asserting things that are provably false with about 1 minute of research. If you believe there was an oral contract created, that's fine. You'd be wrong, but that's OK.

What is the 'consideration' in a promise to congress? It's a promise, not a contract, as there is no 'consideration'.
 
We should all be thankful Sec. 230 protects the site and the mods and allows them to freedom to police this place as they want without fear of some whiny idiot suing them for unfairly banning him or her.
Today, vastly new communication tools have been availed to us. We use private places and channels for civic and public communication. The law will have, eventually, to ponder and adjudicate in these extremely sensitive and difficult areas.

The banning of a president of the US was perversely political. Obviously political. And represents a perverse and destructive collusion between private enterprise and government (though indirect).

The implications here are obvious. Except to the Maddened Liberal sorts who will trade away their patrimony for a mess of pottage before they realize what they’ve done.
 
So you didn't watch Jack Dorsey and that egg faced prat Zuckerburg tell congress they don't have bias towards political speech and would not ban on that basis.
They didn't. They banned for political speech inciting violence.

Don't even worry about it. You can't win, nor can Mr. Punkin Head.
 
In related news, people in Hell asked a judge to order the people in charge to give them ice water.
 
Whether or not it is fact matters not in this case, SM has the right to exclude anyone they deem as unfit under their TOS.

But, my take on it:

He has been accusing democrats of stealing the election, without any basis in fact, or evidence, noting that he started doing it many months before the first ballot was cast, thus proving that it was not 'evidence' that so caused him to do this, it was a scheme to subvert the election. This is the first president in history to accuse his opponents of stealing/rigging the election.

By doing this, he has single handedly undermined confidence in the election, and to that extent, has damaged democracy itself. Every election has irregularities, and isolated examples of individuals cheating, but it never amounts to more than a few, and it always involved members of both parties. These do not prove the charge that 'Democrats rigged the election', but Trump knew that his fans would not be able to make that distinction, that they would believe his every word and thus Trump, in some 65 million people, and destroyed confidence in the election. It will take a long time for America to heal, it won't heal as long as Trump is fanning the flames of lies inspiring hatred of democrats.

His objective was to destroy confidence in the election to his fan base and in statehouses where republicans control the election apparatus in the hopes they would toss out Biden electors and replace with Trump electors.

Government officials currently are testifying in congress how he has repeatedly and persistently attempted to get the DOJ AG Rosen to announce the election was corrupt, so that he could pressure states to toss out Biden's electors. This scheme is being testified to by more than one official, not to mention we have recordings of this scheme in GA ( where he is being investigated for criminal activity in GA by the GA AG ).

This scheme was furthered by over 60 lawsuits, all of which no evidence to prove Trump's charge that 'Democrats stole the election' has withstood court scrutiny.

In the furtherance of this scheme Trump whipped up his base with cries of 'Democrats stole the election", staring months before 1/6 and up to 1/6, and has inculcated hatred of democrats to such a degree, like a volcano, that anger erupted into a juggernaut on Jan 6., where cries of 'Stop The Steal" were repeated over and over and over again, with malice on their minds, they also chanted 'hang Mike Pence". Trump attempted to stop the Congress's constitutional duty to count the state's vote and thus finalize the certification of the election, or at least delay it so, in the interim, he could pressure more states to toss out Biden's electors and replace them with his own.

Therefore, on 1/6, the overall 'riot' was due, ultimately, to the continuous incendiary acts, comments, mentions, speeches, on 1/6, and going back many months of which the predominant message was 'democrats stole the election' and that lie began before the first ballot was cast, inculcated in the minds and hearts of his follows long and hard, to such an extent, that it caused a welling up of a juggernaut of rage & hate, and erupted in volcanic fashion on 1/6, resulting in several deaths and millions of worth of property damaged, some property stolen, and trespassing of the offices of congresspersons and senators and the terrorizing of persons thereby, and the delay of several hours of the constitutional proceedings.


The point is, those who are asking for explicit speech on 1/6 are missing the larger picture. Heck, mafioso commit murders without so much mentioning the crime committed, so explicit speech is not required, Deeds, acts, speeches, over a period of time, creating a juggernaut of hate equals 'incitation of insurrection' 'seditious conspiracy' etc.
7 other quotes and replies besides this attempted shout down.

18 other Libs/progressives before this one.

Shut up, they explained.
 
Today, vastly new communication tools have been availed to us. We use private places and channels for civic and public communication. The law will have, eventually, to ponder and adjudicate in these extremely sensitive and difficult areas.

The banning of a president of the US was perversely political. Obviously political. And represents a perverse and destructive collusion between private enterprise and government (though indirect).

The implications here are obvious. Except to the Maddened Liberal sorts who will trade away their patrimony for a mess of pottage before they realize what they’ve done.
Who cares if it was political? You think that shouldn't be allowed? That certain political beliefs should be illegal?
 
Who cares if it was political? You think that shouldn't be allowed? That certain political beliefs should be illegal?
The banning of a president is an event within American history that has consequences. Those consequences are difficult to discern in all their ramifications but I suggest they portend the ‘fracture’ I often speak about.

I do not expect you to understand these ramifications or to be concerned about them, given your personal orientation.
 
The banning of a president is an event within American history that has consequences. Those consequences are difficult to discern in all their ramifications but I suggest they portend the ‘fracture’ I often speak about.
It does have consequences but unlike you I don't find it difficult to discern them at all. Trump doesn't get to post on Twitter. That's it. That's the consequence. Big whoop.
I do not expect you to understand these ramifications or to be concerned about them, given your personal orientation.
I doubt very much you understand them either seeing as you admitted difficulties in discerning them and have yet to describe any. 😂
 
Back
Top Bottom