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

[TomFitz]

Of course we have to translate what she's writing into reality...and in that case she means that she really believes the election was stolen but also acknowledges there's no real evidence and so doesnt want to look that stupid.

It's her usual, overly-verbose way of not committing to something...and so then never being 'wrong'...and probing to see what "others" think as cover. "None of the risk with all of the attention."

I think we are dealing with a trumpster who is trying to dress up the usual nonsense in big words, circular phrases, and careful evasions. The content isn’t much different than most of the other trumpian nonsense.

 

[bearpoker]

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.

I think he'd be laughed out of court it he tried that. First, he voluntarily associated with Twitter. Then he begs to get his account back. If Twitter made any money off of him, his voluntary presence on the platform implies his consent to it. That is if they could prove that Twitter exploited Trump for financial gain in that way, which is doubtful.

 

[Lursa]

I think we are dealing with a trumpster who is trying to dress up the usual nonsense in big words, circular phrases, and careful evasions. The content isn’t much different than most of the other trumpian nonsense.

Agreed. But she also seems aware of how stupid it appears in real life to be a follower of the creator of the Big Lie and a believer (at least hopefully) in that lie.

 

[bearpoker]

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

Probably because you don't idolize a certain whiny septuagenarian adolescent.

 

[Luce]

Given your mindless, annoying and diverting content one can at least understand why you’d get jettisoned.

pot/kettle

 

[Luce]

Probably because you don't idolize a certain whiny septuagenarian adolescent.

No, it was because I tricked a bunch of people into looking at tubgirl.

What can I say? I'm a criminal.

 

[bearpoker]

Given your mindless, annoying and diverting content one can at least understand why you’d get jettisoned.

Give him some credit. He can be mindless, annoying and diverting in a sentence or two. It takes you pages.

 

[bearpoker]

Incitement to violence isn't free speech. So he got the boot.

I admit, I miss his Adderall-fueled 3 AM tweets, the same way I miss Sean Spicer losing his shit in press conferences.

I'm sure they'll both find alternate ways to entertain you. Have some faith!

 

[bearpoker]

He will get to try the case in California instead of Florida now...

Wow! I didn't know former presidents don't have to honor contracts.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Of course we have to translate what she's writing into reality...and in that case she means that she really believes the election was stolen but also acknowledges there's no real evidence and so doesnt want to look that stupid.

Empty accusations. Translate into reality? What do you mean?

I said that I have not been able to come to an absolute conclusion about the entire process of the election. And I carefully explained why.

A fair and balanced position.

I am also very unsure who, in the different factions, is stupid. The American Progressive Left, in its hysterical manifestation, does not seem at all bright and I don’t trust them.

Yet I am uncertain who to trust — for the same reasons I expressed.

It's her usual, overly-verbose way of not committing to something...and so then never being 'wrong'...and probing to see what "others" think as cover. "None of the risk with all of the attention."

Nonsense. The fact is I take extraordinary risks in presenting controversial ideas and views.

You are driven by your own bias and prejudice.

 

[Lursa]

Give him some credit. He can be mindless, annoying and diverting in a sentence or two. It takes you pages.

 

[Lursa]

Empty accusations. Translate into reality? What do you mean?

I said that I have not been able to come to an absolute conclusion about the entire process of the election. And I carefully explained why.

A fair and balanced position.

I am also very unsure who, in the different factions, is stupid. The American Progressive Left, in its hysterical manifestation, does not seem at all bright and I don’t trust them.

Yet I am uncertain who to trust — for the same reasons I expressed.

Nonsense. The fact is I take extraordinary risks in presenting controversial ideas and views.

You are driven by your own bias and prejudice.

TL;dr

 

[Quag]

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

Nah even as dumb as he is he knows he cant win a general election and he hates to lose. He will find an excuse to drop out

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I think we are dealing with a trumpster who is trying to dress up the usual nonsense in big words, circular phrases, and careful evasions. The content isn’t much different than most of the other trumpian nonsense.

How funny this is, and how nicely it conforms to the notion that you (the high-minded superior ones who know what’s what) gaze out on the multitude of rubes who need your moral guidance.

Trump, as Bannon said, is an ‘imperfect vessel’. I am more interested in the phenomenon of Trump.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

TL;dr

Very well Lursa. You are a bad-faith actor. You are the first, I hope the last and only, that I will put on ignore.

 

[OscarLevant]

Empty accusations. Translate into reality? What do you mean?

I said that I have not been able to come to an absolute conclusion about the entire process of the election. And I carefully explained why.

A fair and balanced position.

I am also very unsure who, in the different factions, is stupid. The American Progressive Left, in its hysterical manifestation, does not seem at all bright and I don’t trust them.

Yet I am uncertain who to trust — for the same reasons I expressed.

Nonsense. The fact is I take extraordinary risks in presenting controversial ideas and views.

You are driven by your own bias and prejudice.

Well, you do have an inflated view of yourself.

Your inability to come to a conclusion doesn't equal 'fair and balanced' nor does it equal 'without bias', especially in the face of the overwhelming lack of evidence to support Trump's allegation that 'Democrats stole the election'.

What it does equal is 'wishy washy'.

Put that in your verbose tea cup and drink it.

 

[Lursa]

Very well Lursa. You are a bad-faith actor. You are the first, I hope the last and only, that I will put on ignore.

🖐🖐 No worries, I'll still reply to yours

 

[Luce]

🖐🖐

Lucky.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Well, you do have an inflated view of yourself.

I would in fact talk down to WF Buckley.

Put that in your verbose tea cup and drink it.

I’d have said something like: “Sprinkle that on your faux-crab word-salad sifrinita!”

Sifrino:​

​

(Venezuela, derogatory) snobbish, snobby, snob (said of a person who ostentatiously belongs to, or pretends to belong to, the upper social classes) Synonym: pijo. (Venezuela, derogatory) empty, dud (a person who possesses fashion and material goods, but who has low spiritual and intellectual qualities).​

 

[JasperL]

Empty accusations. Translate into reality? What do you mean?

I said that I have not been able to come to an absolute conclusion about the entire process of the election. And I carefully explained why.

A fair and balanced position.

It's a nothing position. What doe the "entire process of the election" even mean? The election was about 10 months ago, all the evidence points in the same direction, so what's the issue?

I am also very unsure who, in the different factions, is stupid. The American Progressive Left, in its hysterical manifestation, does not seem at all bright and I don’t trust them.
Yet I am uncertain who to trust — for the same reasons I expressed.

Nonsense. The fact is I take extraordinary risks in presenting controversial ideas and views.

No you don't.

People who did take "extraordinary risks" during the "process of the election" last year were those Republicans who did their job according to the law and stood up against Trump and the MAGA crew, and the mountain of lies. Others who took "extraordinary risks" were previously unknown workers who did their job and were called out by Trump and the MAGAs. They were subject to death threats, risk their position in the party, their offices.

You risk, as far as I can tell, nothing as a pseudonymous figure, displaying the flag of Denmark and a location of Colombia, on an obscure but very interesting debate forum.

How funny this is, and how nicely it conforms to the notion that you (the high-minded superior ones who know what’s what) gaze out on the multitude of rubes who need your moral guidance.

Trump, as Bannon said, is an ‘imperfect vessel’. I am more interested in the phenomenon of Trump.

That's funny to see you type this.

 

[OscarLevant]

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).

YOu don't know what went on in the last election?

Well, allow me to explain it to you.

First, we must posit the self-evident truth that, given the millions of ballots cast, irregularities are common to, and do exist in, ALL elections.

Second, we must recognize the fact that Trump is an opportunist, and exploiter of facts and events to suit a particular agenda, as he as always been, in the past. He deliberately planned on exploiting what are common election irregularities, trump them up as 'proof' that 'Democrats stole the election'. Note that no prior president in history has attempted this scheme.

Trump, being a clever man, planted into the brains of his flock, the idea that 'the only way democrats can win is if they rig the election'. He said this a number of times many months prior to the first ballot being cast.

We can see this as the opening move towards a grander scheme, and that scheme, primarily, is to undermine public confidence in the election process.

Now, why would he do this? HE would do this because should he lose, he can claim that 'Democrats stole the election, and he would then trump up the many irregularities that occur in all elections, as 'proof' that 'dems were cheating'.

Secondly, he would undermine the confidence in the elections such that he hoped to persuade various state secretary's of state to throw out Biden's electors and replace with Trump electors. This scheme, on the whole, failed, but it is an established fact that he tried it. He tried as recently as a few days ago in his letter to GA Secretary of State to persuade SoC Raffensperger to 'decertify' the election. His 'evidence' has been debunked, repeatedly. As much as Raffensperger, a republican, wanted Trump to win, what he would not do is co-conspire to thwart the will of the people. What Trump is doing, and has been doing, is what he has charged Democrats with, he has been trying to steal the election, himself.



Moreover, he has been repeating similar acts with other states.

The scheme is to thwart the will of the people, to undermine American Democracy, and subvert the election.

The evidence that Trump is doing this is overwhelming, and a matter of public record.

Do you not see this?

How can you possibly be undecided on this in face of the concrete, and verifiable facts?

 

[ClaraD]

I don't know about your analogy but I don't think trump should win if his complaint is that social media won't play with him.

If he complains that social media is making money from his information but doing so without fulfilling their end of their contractual agreement, I think that might be a winnable complaint.

what contractual agreement? when you join facebook and twitter, your information that you post, belongs to them...read your agreement.

 

[Lursa]

It's a nothing position. What doe the "entire process of the election" even mean? The election was about 10 months ago, all the evidence points in the same direction, so what's the issue?

No you don't.

People who did take "extraordinary risks" during the "process of the election" last year were those Republicans who did their job according to the law and stood up against Trump and the MAGA crew, and the mountain of lies. Others who took "extraordinary risks" were previously unknown workers who did their job and were called out by Trump and the MAGAs. They were subject to death threats, risk their position in the party, their offices.

You risk, as far as I can tell, nothing as a pseudonymous figure, displaying the flag of Denmark and a location of Colombia, on an obscure but very interesting debate forum.


That's funny to see you type this.

What? What 'extraordinary risks' are involved in posting on an anonymous Internet forum?

Good lord, what a hyper-inflated sense of self-importance. Esp. when people cant be bothered to read 3/4 of the pretentious, non-committal effluvium she writes, if they read that much.

 

[TomFitz]

How funny this is, and how nicely it conforms to the notion that you (the high-minded superior ones who know what’s what) gaze out on the multitude of rubes who need your moral guidance.

Trump, as Bannon said, is an ‘imperfect vessel’. I am more interested in the phenomenon

And yet,you’re trying to pretend that trumpism is some sort of intellectual exercise.

You tried to put lipstick on the right wing trash media.

And you have repeatedly said that You “ have not been able to come to an absolute conclusion about the entire process of the election”. You say you explained why, but I never saw it. Not that it matters. The evidence is in. The fraud and irregularity claims were laughed out of court. The last attempt to peddle the big lie suffered a desultory death at the hands of Cyber Ninjas.

And we are now in the midst of learning the details of the extent that trump and his henchment went to pressure the Justice Department into nullifying the vote on any pretext they could dream up, no matter how thin.

You’ve been here trying to paint trumpism as if it had intellectual value.

Bigotry, fear, xenophobia and corruption don’t have an intellectual base.

But you keep trying to prop them up, albeit in the most circular and non commital language you can conjur.

Oh, and Steve Bannon is no philosopher either. He’s a con man.

 

[trouble13]

I think he'd be laughed out of court it he tried that. First, he voluntarily associated with Twitter. Then he begs to get his account back. If Twitter made any money off of him, his voluntary presence on the platform implies his consent to it. That is if they could prove that Twitter exploited Trump for financial gain in that way, which is doubtful.

I think it would be reasonable to argue that social media sites have been in breech of contract with people.