After Trump Lies Again He is Fact Checked By Twitter and Throws a Tantrum - Trump's Campaign Then Lies, Too

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

I see. So, ownership of a business doesn't entitle one to serve who they please.

 

But you're OK with twitter silencing some of their customers but not all?

 

Bit of a double standard there, isn't it?

 

 

You're talking to a man who spent a week down here posting CCP talking points as if they were his own. And a man who posted the literal mantra of every tyrant and dictator throughout history as if it were aspirational: 

 

On 5/4/2020 at 5:05 PM, Niagara Bill said:

 

We cared about society as a whole. We wanted the world to be a better place. We did not think of individual freedoms.

 

We tried to stop violence and war....

 

He's not even smart enough to realize he's an idiot. 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

Alex Jones in Winslow - always knew you were a huge fan

 

So you don't have an answer. How about Paul Joseph Watson? he ok to silence or nah?

 

[Warren Zevon]

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

So you don't have an answer. How about Paul Joseph Watson? he ok to silence or nah?

 

 

They abused the TOS and were banned. Were they discriminated against because of their religion? 

[LeGOATski]

3 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Alex Jones was. And he's just one person.

 

Trump would be if he wasn't the President.

 

So again, I ask you noble progressives, why is it ok for Twitter to silence conservatives but not ok for a baker to not bake cakes for someone whose "lifestyle" they don't approve of?
 

Alex Jones....yikes. 

Twitter was actually the longest hold-out on that guy, lol

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Warren Zevon said:

 

They abused the TOS and were banned. Were they discriminated against because of their religion? 

 

Ah, the terms of service.

 

What if my terms of service include not baking cakes for people who shouldn't be getting married?

 

 

[Niagara Bill]

Call it discrimination, call it whatever...my point is simple.....Religion is not to be involved. A court should not see religion as an argument for the right to discriminate, or an argument on abortion, or blood transfusions, or marriage, or voting or prostitution or whatever. Religion has no standing except in your home, never in business.

[snafu]

1 hour ago, LeGOATski said:

They do give the benefit of the doubt to leaders. FB has a similar policy dubbed the "newsworthy exception"

 

Twitter's been letting it go for a while but the scrutiny intensifies. Adding a simple fact check link doesn't stifle any free speech. 

 

Its very concerning to have a president who wants to control news/social media. Trump wants a dictatorship as much as possible. We can't let that happen.

 

People are going to see this as pure partisanship on Twitter's behalf if they don't add a fact check link to every "newsworthy exception" user.  What about retweets?  Twitter is going to run around and fact check everyone?  All of this seems to go against what Twitter was all about.  Like I said, Twitter should go all in with the editing -- and probably kill their business -- or stay out altogether and stop appearing to choose sides.

 

You say that this President wants to control news / social media -- but isn't that what Twitter is doing?  Can you find me a politician who that doesn't apply to?  If that's the definition of a would-be dictator, then we've got thousands of them running around (in office and out).

 

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Niagara Bill said:

Call it discrimination, call it whatever...my point is simple.....Religion is not to be involved. A court should not see religion as an argument for the right to discriminate, or an argument on abortion, or blood transfusions, or marriage, or voting or prostitution or whatever. Religion has no standing except in your home, never in business.

 

I see. So THAT form of expression isn't to be used as a means of discrimination in the public sphere, but politics is?

 

Double. Standard.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Niagara Bill said:

Call it discrimination, call it whatever...my point is simple.....Religion is not to be involved. 

 

He keeps underlining his passion for tyranny and fascism while thinking he's pushing hippy love. Because he's not bright enough to understand history, let alone spell his own name. 

 

On 5/4/2020 at 5:05 PM, Niagara Bill said:

 

We cared about society as a whole. We wanted the world to be a better place. We did not think of individual freedoms.

 

We tried to stop violence and war....Today they want to insight violence. 

 

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

 

I see. So THAT form of expression isn't to be used as a means of discrimination in the public sphere, but politics is?

 

Double. Standard.

 

 

He's a fascist, Joe. 

 

He's just too stupid to realize he is one. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He keeps underlining his passion for tyranny and fascism while thinking he's pushing hippy love. Because he's not bright enough to understand history, let alone spell his own name. 

 

 

 

He's a fascist, Joe. 

 

He's just too stupid to realize he is one. 

 

To be clear: i don't care if he's a fascist, that's his prerogative. What i DO care about is intellectual dishonesty.

 

I hold a position that if Twitter/Facebook/whoever decides they hold the key to who gets to communicate what, then it stands to reason a baker SHOULD be able to deny service to anyone he chooses. Logically consistent.

 

 

[SectionC3]

34 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You're still a blithering moron.

 

Show what I said about 5G, liar.

 

Why are you still here after saying you'd leave? 

 

“Blithering moron” is not a nice thing to say.  Be better!

[Niagara Bill]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

 

I see. So THAT form of expression isn't to be used as a means of discrimination in the public sphere, but politics is?

 

Double. Standard.

 

Now this makes NO sense. 

Any one can express their religion but not to discriminate against other citizens. 

And yes....Religion should not be in politics. 

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

People are going to see this as pure partisanship on Twitter's behalf if they don't add a fact check link to every "newsworthy exception" user.  What about retweets?  Twitter is going to run around and fact check everyone?  All of this seems to go against what Twitter was all about.  Like I said, Twitter should go all in with the editing -- and probably kill their business -- or stay out altogether and stop appearing to choose sides.

 

You say that this President wants to control news / social media -- but isn't that what Twitter is doing?  Can you find me a politician who that doesn't apply to?  If that's the definition of a would-be dictator, then we've got thousands of them running around (in office and out).

 

 

 

I don't use Twitter, but that doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Adding the fact check link to highly influential users wouldn't be hard. It should be coded to search all valid websites. That wouldn't kill their business.

Most politicians don't want to control news/media. That's false. We're talking about state-run news/media like dictatorships do. Trump envies that.

[GG]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

“Blithering moron” is not a nice thing to say.  Be better!

 

If it squawks like a duck.

[Warren Zevon]

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

I hold a position that if Twitter/Facebook/whoever decides they hold the key to who gets to communicate what, then it stands to reason a baker SHOULD be able to deny service to anyone he chooses. Logically consistent.

 

 

Your problem is with the constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court, then.

[SectionC3]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

 

To be clear: i don't care if he's a fascist, that's his prerogative. What i DO care about is intellectual dishonesty.

 

I hold a position that if Twitter/Facebook/whoever decides they hold the key to who gets to communicate what, then it stands to reason a baker SHOULD be able to deny service to anyone he chooses. Logically consistent.

 

 

 

There’s some truth to your point, but the fact remains that Twitter’s actions aren’t premised upon membership in a protected class (or something that arguably could constitute a protected class).  

Just now, GG said:

 

If it squawks like a duck.

 

Be better!

[BuffaloHokie13]

16 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

No, that would be called freedom for all. Religion should not be able to control access to some. Religion must be left at the door by all, including the owners and shareholders. 

It certainly doesn't sound like freedom for the business owner being compelled to comply with the wishes of every person who enters their shop. In my opinion, freedom for all would be freedom for the business to conduct business as they please and freedom for the general public to decide what businesses to patronize.

[Niagara Bill]

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

To be clear: i don't care if he's a fascist, that's his prerogative. What i DO care about is intellectual dishonesty.

 

I hold a position that if Twitter/Facebook/whoever decides they hold the key to who gets to communicate what, then it stands to reason a baker SHOULD be able to deny service to anyone he chooses. Logically consistent.

 

 

I never said Twitter had the right of control, I only asked if it was someone like Agent Rhino would you care as much.

And no that baker should have no right to refuse a Catholic, Baptist, gay, Muslim, surfer, golfer, or politician. 

[GG]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

There’s some truth to your point, but the fact remains that Twitter’s actions aren’t premised upon membership in a protected class (or something that arguably could constitute a protected class).  

 

Be better!

 

Be better to a disingenuous liar who's hoping for a civil war?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

There’s some truth to your point, but the fact remains that Twitter’s actions aren’t premised upon membership in a protected class (or something that arguably could constitute a protected class).  

 

 My beef is with the idea of PROTECTED CLASSES. It's horseshit, AND it's unconstitutional. Again, be consistent. Protect everyone's rights or protect no one's rights.

 

 

1 minute ago, Niagara Bill said:

I never said Twitter had the right of control, I only asked if it was someone like Agent Rhino would you care as much.

And no that baker should have no right to refuse a Catholic, Baptist, gay, Muslim, surfer, golfer, or politician. 

 

So then twitter has no right to deplatform anyone?

 

Help me out here, I'm trying to understand your reasoning. Not mine. Yours.