R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

@Brandon9000,

If that's what you believe, fine. I think that most people believe that breaking into the Capitol and preventing Congress from doing its lawful work is not "petitioning for redress of grievances". Trump even tried to force Pence into refusing the certified ballots — which would have been unconstitutional. I don't expect you to agree and I don't particularly care to continue the discussion with you.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

If that's what you believe, fine. I think that most people believe that breaking into the Capitol and preventing Congress from doing its lawful work is not "petitioning for redress of grievances". Trump even tried to force Pence into refusing the certified ballots — which would have been unconstitutional. I don't expect you to agree and I don't particularly care to continue the discussion with you.

Oh, I'm sure that you don't particularly care to continue the discussion with me. I tend to ask you to provide evidence for your claims.

I agree with you completely that that breaking into the Capitol and preventing Congress from doing its lawful work is not "petitioning for redress of grievances." However, he never told anyone to break into the Capitol. If you think he did, could you direct me to some quotation in which he says that?

0 Replies

1 Reply

Quote:

However, he never told anyone to break into the Capitol.

Of course he didn't directly give specific orders to break the law. He's not that stupid — we all remember the "perfect" phone call. Impeachment, however, is a political process, not strictly a legal one. I don't see how Trump can avoid all culpability, having put the whole plan in motion weeks ago and continually building it up as a day of reckoning.

Were I a Trump supporter I'd resent having been lied to about the "stolen election". It's really as simple as that; there was no steal.

Were I a demonstrator on January 6 I'd resent being used as a dramatic prop and set up to participate in a meaningless protest which was based on a lie, and easily co-opted by the most radical fringe elements in the MAGA mob.

3 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
However, he never told anyone to break into the Capitol.

Of course he didn't directly give specific orders to break the law. He's not that stupid — we all remember the "perfect" phone call. Impeachment, however, is a political process, not strictly a legal one. I don't see how Trump can avoid all culpability, having put the whole plan in motion weeks ago and continually building it up as a day of reckoning.

Were I a Trump supporter I'd resent having been lied to about the "stolen election". It's really as simple as that; there was no steal.

Were I a demonstrator on January 6 I'd resent being used as a dramatic prop and set up to participate in a meaningless protest which was based on a lie, and easily co-opted by the most radical fringe elements in the MAGA mob.

You said:

"Which of them inflamed a mob and directed it to storm the Capitol? "

Show some sort of evidence that he directed a mob to break into the Capitol building or admit that it's false.

I am only asking that you support what you publicly claimed. I can claim that you murder widows and orphans for fun, but claiming it doesn't make it true.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

https://able2know.org/topic/555089-1

0 Replies

@longjon,

Do you know the meaning of the word paranoid?

0 Replies

Misinformation dropped 73% after Twitter banned Trump

Online misinformation about election fraud plunged 73 percent after several social media
sites suspended Trump and key allies last week, research firm Zignal Labs has found,
underscoring the power of tech companies to limit the falsehoods poisoning public debate
when they act aggressively...

2 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

Misinformation dropped 73% after Twitter banned Trump

Online misinformation about election fraud plunged 73 percent after several social media
sites suspended Trump and key allies last week, research firm Zignal Labs has found,
underscoring the power of tech companies to limit the falsehoods poisoning public debate
when they act aggressively...

This story is bullshit... mathematically speaking that is. It is a marketing department pushing a statistically invalid narrative.

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

You've got to wonder if that was Trump or the overall chilling effect of the bans or even backlash from the insurrection.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Running away again? Once more, you said:

"Which of them inflamed a mob and directed it to storm the Capitol? "

Tell me a sentence or two in which he did that. Specifically. Quote him.

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

This is easily the dumbest thing that leftists always say. These companies get tax breaks from the government and special protection under section 230. There are even multiple people from these companies getting positions in the Biden administration after donating millions to his campaign.

The government is censoring people and removing the 1st amendment by using "private companies" as a shield to do so.

1 Reply

@longjon,

Should I point out that when we get rid of section 230... there will be more censorship not less.

Trump said we should get rid of section 230 as part of a random tweet. Now it has become part of the MAGA religion even though it never made any sense.

1 Reply

@longjon,

longjon wrote:

Many noted doctors have pointed out that leftist males have much lower testosterone than conservative males, and that women find them less attractive.

As much as it pains me to say, I have to say it "You are crazier than an outhouse rat". But who knows, maybe someone is dim enough to buy this silly line of crap, obviously you do, maybe you can induct another sap into your sad sack cult.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

section 230... there will be more censorship not less.

That's a lie. Sec 230 keeps social media companies from getting sued as publishers, stating that they are 'platforms'.

But they should be sued because they are editorializing by only pushing a leftist narrative. They do not act as platforms.

Imagine if the phone company listened to your conversations, and then told you that what you were saying was "dangerous", and then banned you from having phone service.

These companies are out of control and evil.

2 Replies

@longjon,

Stop inciting insurrection and you won't be told what you are saying is dangerous.

1 Reply

@longjon,

longjon wrote:

Quote:
section 230... there will be more censorship not less.

That's a lie. Sec 230 keeps social media companies from getting sued as publishers, stating that they are 'platforms'.

I will as simple as I can for you..

Sec 230 keeps social media companies from getting sued for not censoring something that should be censored. If you take away Section 230, companies (including able2know) will be pressured to censor more to keep from getting sued.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Stop inciting insurrection

'Insurrection' is when an election is stolen, no one is allowed to discuss that it's been stolen, and big tech companies take away the 1st amendment.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

No, I wll make this simple for YOU.

You clearly don't understand 230 and why it's a problem.

When a media company editorializes and damages someone, they are acting as a publisher. That's why Nicholas Sandmann sued the Washington Post and CNN for lying about him, had enough evidence to prove defamation, and forced a $250 million settlement.

All these tech companies are acting like publishers when they silence all conservatives, and only allow or promote leftist content. They SHOULD censor more, but the point is that the censorship should be enforced equally regardless of political ideology. Sort of like how all Americans should be viewed as equal under the law.

Currently conservatives are being persecuted by big tech companies. Section 230 facilitates this. This is un-American and an affront to the constitution.

2 Replies

Quote:

Currently conservatives are being persecuted by big tech companies.

Being expected to adhere to the stated rules of a platform isn't really "persecution". If you drive too fast through a posted zone and get a summons, you aren't being "persecuted". And it's not as if we weren't allowed to read or discuss the issues around the fictitious "stolen election". We're all familiar with the charges and they got lots of airtime in the first weeks out from the election. It was only after the lawsuits began being thrown out of court and it became obvious that the reports of "election fraud" were themselves fraudulent that the media companies clamped down on the obvious disinformation that was being spread. As of yet, the left hasn't attempted a similar wide scale propaganda campaign so you don't see the rules being applied to shut it off. If something like that occurs, a big push from the political left to convince the public of an event that never happened, I hope the media companies respond the same way.

0 Replies

R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

Quick Links

My Account

able2know