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

Quag said:

I have to disagree I dont think he will actually run in 2024 but he will raise money to do so and that is what this is about

Click to expand...

True, he always needs more money to not pay his lawyers.

bearpoker said:

True, he always needs more money to not pay his lawyers.

Click to expand...

He needs top keep paying his creditors

OpportunityCost said:

Don't head towards the faulty comparison. It doesn't work when I see it coming.

Click to expand...

It's a question, dude.

Quag said:

I have to disagree I dont think he will actually run in 2024 but he will raise money to do so and that is what this is about

Click to expand...

I believe he will run & if Manchin & Sinama get their way, will win.

Alizia Tyler said:

Ok. I sort of get why you say this. But I invite you (you especially) to refute any point I make. You do not engage in that way.

I assume that a good argument has merit and will win, or lose, the day.

Click to expand...

What would you base that assumption on?????

The marketplace of ideas is a fallacy.

The truth and facts do not automatically win the day. We have a right wing media noise machine that proves that every day. And we just got rid of a wannabe tyrant who dedicated himself to peddling cofeve.

Where is the virtue or merit in any of that?

I took your last post to me apart and refuted it point by point. You’re response was snark about the word “gee”.

Where’s the merit in that????

RAMOSS said:

I don't think this push is about 'freedom of speech' at all. I think it's Trump wanting free advertisement for his presidential run in 2024

Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is not the issue here. There is no argument for it, whatsoever.

This is trump playing the victim again to a fan base that sees itself as victims.

He’s fundraising off of it. And pocketing the sucker money.

He isn’t going to run in 2024. But he’s going to diddle his declining base with his “will he, or won’t he” act right up till the last minute.

And he will terrorize the rest of the GOP candidates with threats, and attacks designed to place himself in front of all of them and try to play kingmaker.

But he won’t actually endorse or actively support another candidate. Trump’s enormous vanity will preclude that.

But he will shake the no nothing money tree, and pocket the dollars the rubes throw at him.

He’s been doing that for quite some time now.

JasperL said:

I've certainly never objected to any of that. But there are thousands of businesses that operate in these same "spaces" and no one cares that they are as biased as they want to be. Furthermore, FB is as sociopathic as any business in the world. I'd bet my last dollar Zuck would happily serve the Nazis in that era if he thought doing it made FB an extra 10 cents a share. He's shown us that many times, so the idea that they are 'liberals' etc. is just stupid. If the company folded tomorrow, I'd laugh.

So what they do they do to maximize their profits, and part of that is responding to public pressure, which includes censoring toxic presences on the platform. That is the "free market" at work, actually. No one is mad they censor neo-Nazis, just the MAGA contingent, and only a very few of them, and Trump. That is the problem - that they censored the personification of the state at that time.

Click to expand...

For awhile I did a lot of reading on the POCLAD website where I was introduced to the question of Quo warranto. "By what authority?" It is a compelling idea: that the people through their representatives grant the right of existence of a private corporation by granting them a charter to operate as a *fictitious third person* with perpetual life. Simultaneously, I was also reading books like The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom (David Kupelian).

His (Kupelian's) perspective is Christian and his critique of what goes on in the marketing world is scathing. If you read the blurb on the Amazon site it describes quite directly what concerns him. Essentially, I share his orientation. I mean, at a foundational level. So my critiques -- the entire reason I even participate in political and sociological discussion -- is because of my metaphysical, spiritual and cultural concerns.

So on one hand I am aware of an entirely legal argument, grounded in US Constitutional principles, which constructs a platform for the right of people to determine their affairs (an idea foundational to the US obviously), and describes the degree to which private power has usurped this right, or has developed ways and means to get around 'proper democratic controls' through legal machinations, and on the other hand an argument against basic corruption (spiritual and moral and social) which is an issue pertinent to the individual (if one accepts, as I do, the soul's and God's existence).

So what I say, and I think it is the only true thing that can be said, is that people do, beyond any doubt, have a right to question the corruption that subverts genuine Constitutional principles (and again I mention that all rights granted to a corporation are rights that can be retracted at any moment -- if such mechanisms were actually respected, and they are not).

But the other side of this issue, for me, is clearly Christian, metaphysical, moral and ethical. And as you can easily discern I have concerns and issues that are definitely and unmistakably Christian-Conservative. It is the central area of my own study.

So like anyone who participates on this forum and any given citizen of our nation I have a right to say and think what I believe and to align myself with those people who share the values I define as fundamental. The reason I say this is because (as I say) the quality of the communication that goes on here (on this forum) is often very low. Bickering, stooooopid commentary that does not advance the communication of ideas at all, constant misinterpretation of what people say by redefinition and restatement, etc.

My efforts, which do not often get much appreciation (and I could not care any less!) are to try to bring the core ideas, the important ideas, out into the open for reasoned discussion. There are some people so badly prepared that they genuinely do not understand the very ideas and principles at stake. That is why I refer to the phrase "The dumbing-down of America".

I know it is not a bad objective, and I assume you know this as well, so the 'flak' I get is -- referring to an old idiom -- like water off a duck's back.

I am describing to you my orientation because I feel it is the proper -- even the ethical -- thing to do. You have to establish a *ground* where genuine, honest, good-faith conversation can take place.

JasperL said:

Well, we've never in our history had a POTUS spread lies about an election for months, organize a rally of the faithful to attempt to stop the certification of an election, then as the riot/insurrection is taking place, first do nothing at all, then after being urged by staff finally put out a video that tells those engaged at that moment in a riot/insurrection that he loves them.

So it's not an attack on the "office of the presidency" but Donald J. Trump, and for what he did, his actions. There's a an important difference. People in a free country must, as a core, essential right, be free to attack the personification of the state at that time - i.e. POTUS, - without fearing retaliation from the state.

Furthermore, so what if it is an "attack on the office of the Presidency." If you want to assert that a private business must not attack the office of the presidency, or else, say that. If that's not your position, then clarify what it is.

Click to expand...

My view, at first blush, is to perceive (or really to propose) that you have a specific, partisan position. Here, in this paragraph, you relay to me your understanding of what went on and what goes on. You assert this to me as if it is all *settled truth*. Obviously, you have accepted the rather standard view that is communicated, whether you see and understand it our not, through the same perception-molding media that molds all of our views. We are receivers of information, views, structures of perception, etc. and the reason I say this is because I feel we must step back and examine that. If the 'medium is the message' then we need to examine the mediums and the processes through which we build and concretize our perceptions.

So, that said, I am uncertain if I can really know, absolutely and factually, what went on during the last election. But what does this ultimately mean and what am I ultimately saying? I do not know if it is possible, and I do not know if it is wise, to 'simply believe' what is purveyed to us. Why? I would turn to what you yourself wrote in the first paragraphs I quoted and commented on: We live in a country ruled, essentially, by business interests. If what I suggest here is true, and I think it is significantly true, then we have every good reason and hundreds or solid examples as to why we are wise to doubt. One primary example is what was done as a result of 9/11 -- setting the nation on a course which has wrought so much destruction. That is just one example among dozens and hundreds.

I hope that you will understand me and not immediately interject your spurious interpretation of what I am saying here (on this forum, generally speaking, this is the bad-faith model, as you likely know). So what I say is:

I cannot discern the facts about the last election. Not in the context of a (literal) social, ideologic, cultural and economic war that, to my mind, defines what is going on in the United States today. I do not know, yet, how to interpret the system's opposition to the advent of Donald Trump (and, let me say, some of the actions of Steve Bannon which, as he described it, need to take place in the nation in order to move it closer to its foundational principles (and I respect, if I do not completely believe, some aspects of Bannon's thought on these matters).

[continued from previous]

But one thing is clear (insofar as anything can be clear) there are very many good reasons why the *war* I describe is going on. Why is that? Because the nation America is of vital concern to those who, shall I say, 'own' it. And this turns the conversation back in that direction: ownership, control, direction. Thus the *owners* who also control all those systems through which view and perspective come to us, must be closely examined as part of an initial project.

Here I commented on the first quoted paragraph, above. I am not at all sure how I must, and how I will ultimately, have to interpret what you-plural (it is a certain *they*) define as an 'insurrection'. As you can guess, as you should guess if you read carefully, I am very open to the notion of 'insurrection' if it is defined as 'subversion of Constitutional principles'. But I am also open to the notion of personal corruption in the Christian sense. So, what happens (and I'd say what is happening) is a manifestation of the fracturing of the individual's moral stance, a grounding within metaphysical principles, that manifests as a wider, social, cultural fracturing. The nation is fracturing. And what in my view will restore, or better put try to hold together the nation, is military power.

That power is now revving into action as a low-intensity war is being enacted. Meaning, para-military and para-governmental (ie national police) are now beginning to act to attack and defeat certain manifestations of populism. So what I observe is that, socially and culturally, the nation's 'glue' seems to unravel, and discord and violent controversy rear their heads, it is the State here I mean the Nation) that will be forced to step in to maintain order through pacification programs.

I also want to mention that there are other really really wonderful people who write here! (I am not the only one certainly.)

(Hope I have not left anyone out!)

We must assign credit where a high social credit score is obviously due!

Keep up the good work. You are going to Rebuild Your Country (build back better®) on your excellent civic model!

Now that is something you'll have a hard time bickering over, isn't it?

@reflechissez
@Quag
@jpevans
@Master Debator
@bearpoker
@OscarLevant
@Hamish Howl
@ClaraD
@BlueTex
@Luce

Alizia Tyler said:

It is a compelling idea: that the people through their representatives grant the right of existence of a private corporation by granting them a charter to operate as a *fictitious third person* with perpetual life.

Click to expand...

Creating social constructs is what we do. You could describe government itself in very much the same way.

Alizia Tyler said:

So on one hand I am aware of an entirely legal argument, grounded in US Constitutional principles, which constructs a platform for the right of people to determine their affairs (an idea foundational to the US obviously), and describes the degree to which private power has usurped this right,

Click to expand...

What right has private power usurped? What even is private power? Aren't those just individual citizens exercising their individual rights? We are private citizens after all are we not?

Alizia Tyler said:

or has developed ways and means to get around 'proper democratic controls' through legal machinations,

Click to expand...

What are these proper democratic controls? Do you mean elections?

Alizia Tyler said:

and on the other hand an argument against basic corruption (spiritual and moral and social) which is an issue pertinent to the individual (if one accepts, as I do, the soul's and God's existence).

Click to expand...

Shouldn't your accusations of corruption be adjudicated through legal machinations or is innocent until proven guilty one of those things that needs to be done away with in proper democratic Christian fundamentalist ethno states?

Alizia Tyler said:

So what I say, and I think it is the only true thing that can be said, is that people do, beyond any doubt, have a right to question the corruption that subverts genuine Constitutional principles

Click to expand...

You certainly do have that right as we all have the right to point and laugh at you when you inevitable fail and then refuse to articulate what corrupt usurpation of your rights has taken place.

Alizia Tyler said:

But the other side of this issue, for me, is clearly Christian, metaphysical, moral and ethical. And as you can easily discern I have concerns and issues that are definitely and unmistakably Christian-Conservative. It is the central area of my own study.

Click to expand...

Yeah it's hard to miss the scent of white nationalism wafting off of you.

Alizia Tyler said:

So like anyone who participates on this forum and any given citizen of our nation I have a right to say and think what I believe and to align myself with those people who share the values I define as fundamental.

Click to expand...

And yet you continue to argue that other private entities be forced to align themselves with people they want nothing to do with. Go figure.

Master Debator said:

What right has private power usurped? What even is private power? Aren't those just individual citizens exercising their individual rights? We are private citizens after all are we not?

Click to expand...

You are instructed, my dear child, to begin to stop asking questions, as you always do, and take the time to write out your own ideas on these topics. The tactic JAQs (jacking) is really really annoying.

If you had to answer your own question, and refer to political theory, how would you do it? Who would you refer to? Who and what are your sources?

Alizia Tyler said:

You are instructed, my dear child, to begin to stop asking questions, as you always do, and take the time to write out your own ideas on these topics. The tactic JAQs (jacking) is really really annoying.

If you had to answer your own question, and refer to political theory, how would you do it? Who would you refer to? Who and what are your sources?

Click to expand...

I was asking for clarification and specific examples of your claims of usurped rights. As I predicted you can't even articulate one.

@Master Debator

You ask so many questions, and each question requires a research project and a great deal of time to answer. I would not say that your questions are bad, they are not, but it is unfair that this is all that you do! You need to write out your carefully expressed essays in which you answer your own questions.

Alizia Tyler said:

@Master Debator

You ask so many questions, and each question requires a research project and a great deal of time to answer. I would not say that your questions are bad, they are not, but it is unfair that this is all that you do! You need to write out your carefully expressed essays in which you answer your own questions.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't require a research paper to name just one of these rights of yours that you claimed was usurped.

jpevans said:

It's a question, dude.

Click to expand...

Nah, its a fallacy asking a question you already know the answer to in order to present it as though others were banned so that the banning of Trump was for legitimate reasons.

But, we have evidence of other bannings for illegitimate reasons and we also have liberals that were not banned for similar postings.

That's why its not objective.

Master Debator said:

I was asking for clarification and specific examples of your claims of usurped rights. As I predicted you can't even articulate one.

Click to expand...

You are not being at all fair. I just spent over an hour writing a careful response to Jasper.

Alizia Tyler said:

My view, at first blush, is to perceive (or really to propose) that you have a specific, partisan position. Here, in this paragraph, you relay to me your understanding of what went on and what goes on. You assert this to me as if it is all *settled truth*. Obviously, you have accepted the rather standard view that is communicated, whether you see and understand it our not, through the same perception-molding media that molds all of our views. We are receivers of information, views, structures of perception, etc. and the reason I say this is because I feel we must step back and examine that. If the 'medium is the message' then we need to examine the mediums and the processes through which we build and concretize our perceptions.

Click to expand...

Frankly I do not care what you think of my position. I can look at objective evidence, and that backs me up - more than 60 failed lawsuits - a perfect record of failure. Dozens of recounts, all show no wrongdoing. Etc. Show me some objective evidence, and it shows the lies Trump and his lackeys spread for months and are still spreading.

But that's not the point. Whether what I believe is true or even false, the 1A exists, at least in large part, so that I can express what I just did and not fear retaliation from the state and that protection for criticizing the state doesn't require that my position even be rational.

More to the point of this conversation, if the 1A doesn't protect Twitter et al banning the then POTUS then the 1A has failed its core purpose. The essential right protected by the 1A is the right to criticize the state, and the right not to have the state force us to amplify the state's message. Trump was/is the 'state.'

Alizia Tyler said:

So, that said, I am uncertain if I can really know, absolutely and factually, what went on during the last election. But what does this ultimately mean and what am I ultimately saying? I do not know if it is possible, and I do not know if it is wise, to 'simply believe' what is purveyed to us. Why? I would turn to what you yourself wrote in the first paragraphs I quoted and commented on: We live in a country ruled, essentially, by business interests. If what I suggest here is true, and I think it is significantly true, then we have every good reason and hundreds or solid examples as to why we are wise to doubt. One primary example is what was done as a result of 9/11 -- setting the nation on a course which has wrought so much destruction. That is just one example among dozens and hundreds.

I hope that you will understand me and not immediately interject your spurious interpretation of what I am saying here (on this forum, generally speaking, this is the bad-faith model, as you likely know). So what I say is:

I cannot discern the facts about the last election. Not in the context of a (literal) social, ideologic, cultural and economic war that, to my mind, defines what is going on in the United States today. I do not know, yet, how to interpret the system's opposition to the advent of Donald Trump (and, let me say, some of the actions of Steve Bannon which, as he described it, need to take place in the nation in order to move it closer to its foundational principles (and I respect, if I do not completely believe, some aspects of Bannon's thought on these matters).

Click to expand...

I don't know how any of this is even tangentially related to the point you're responding to. And of course I directly addressed several of your points in comments you don't bother quoting, so I don't see the point in responding. As always, you're not interested in actually engaging but telling us what you think. Write a book if you want.

Alizia Tyler said:

You are not being at all fair. I just spent over an hour writing a careful response to Jasper.

Click to expand...

Awww. Boohoo. How unfair of me to ask you the specifics of your argument.

OpportunityCost said:

They are not editors but publishers, they don't create content but convey it. To maintain that illusion (its obvious it is an illusion at this point), they need to not be arbitrary, to not show favoritism, to not make decisions that even look political. But they did. You are okay with it, because it won't be used against you.

What does that make you?

Click to expand...

In a free country, it's actually OK to show 'favoritism' for some ideas and to be biased against others. If you want to force, say, a Jewish website to carry neo-Nazis on their platform, say so. If you want a black-oriented forum to have to host white supremacists and ruining the community for others, say so. If not, then you're fine with 'favoritism' and even 'arbitrary' favoritism, but not if it effects people you support.

Personally I hope this is a long an expensive suit for twitter to defend that turns into a PR nightmare for them, but Trump ultimately loses.

I think the better approach for Trump is to sue twitter over them using his name and information to monetize their product.

That would certainly make people aware of how much social media profits from our personal data.

JasperL said:

Frankly I do not care what you think of my position. I can look at objective evidence, and that backs me up - more than 60 failed lawsuits - a perfect record of failure. Dozens of recounts, all show no wrongdoing. Etc. Show me some objective evidence, and it shows the lies Trump and his lackeys spread for months and are still spreading.

Click to expand...

Again I am not at this moment, yet, in a position to finally decide what happened in the last election. I have some sound reasons why I suspend judgment, and these I expressed.

There is a larger picture though and it is how the entire System, if you will permit the term, operated in some concert to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump. And this issue, in that wider picture, has definite relevance.

You do not have to be concerned about it or have any interest in it at all, and what I do here is simply to outline where my thinking stands at this moment.

Master Debator said:

How unfair of me to ask you the specifics of your argument.

Click to expand...

No, what is unfair is just what I said: You never take the time to write out your ideas, whatever they are. You spend a great deal of time picking apart my posts and asking questions that require hours of investment to answer. But I just spent over an hour writing.

What I suggest is that you begin to take the time to write out your views, and also to mention your sources, instead of merely sniping.

(And all along I thought you were a cuckoo-bird!) (There, I was wrong, and I can admit it)

JasperL said:

In a free country, it's actually OK to show 'favoritism' for some ideas and to be biased against others. If you want to force, say, a Jewish website to carry neo-Nazis on their platform, say so. If you want a black-oriented forum to have to host white supremacists and ruining the community for others, say so. If not, then you're fine with 'favoritism' and even 'arbitrary' favoritism, but not if it effects people you support.

Click to expand...

Been down this particular blind alley several times already. Private entities don't get to go before Congress, claim commitment to free expression to secure legislative advantage, then turn around and act in an opposite fashion.

The only ****ing reason you progressives think its okay to have private entities act as censors is because it isn't happening to you.

OpportunityCost said:

Been down this particular blind alley several times already. Private entities don't get to go before Congress, claim commitment to free expression to secure legislative advantage, then turn around and act in an opposite fashion.

The only ****ing reason you progressives think its okay to have private entities act as censors is because it isn't happening to you.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. I got banned on Conservative Political Forums last spring, and you don't hear me bitching.