Twitter may ban President Trump from social media platform after Inauguration Day

Nah. Pretty pointless, as I seem to be able to read a percentage of what is being discussed. That is the likely outcome of my having one Member at PF on ignore. In any event, I am asking you, Mr Cohen, what you mean by 'veracity.'

 

No you didn't lmao! Stop moving the goalposts.

 

Oh....so how does a Court reject an Affidavit not filed, and merely in the possession of Humpty?

 

Ah, so now you have moved the goalposts to, "Show me which affidavits that trump hasn't brought to a courtroom that have been tossed by judges".

I give this trolling a grade of D+.

 

you have been given two.

 

Three:

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electi...-campaign-lawsuit-backed-by-hearsay-evidence/

 

@Borat now has three affidavits that were ridiculed by a judge.

 

The goalposts are Trump, Twitter, his lawsuits supported by 1,000 affidavits and still flagged by Twitter, despite countless collusion hoax lies being there for decades.

That you've failed to find one judge rejecting the veracity of even one of Trump's submitted affidavits is telling.

Your "but but but but we found some totally unrelated affidavit a judge rejected" pathetic whining.... bwahahaha Too funny

You can't even lose with dignity. Yuck

 

if all the affidavits Rudy has are legitimate and factual and good evidence, why are all the judges tossing out the cases?

hmmmm?????????????

 

It seems like you are raging against twitter because they won't let Trump lie. Sad.

 

hey @Borat , if the affidavits are legit, why do the judges keep ******** on the cases?

hmm???

 

retards and soy boys

 

Because it is not about the court cases - that was pure propaganda and they have accomplished their goal with them and all of the lies. This is going to go on until it reaches congress and they will keep trying their coup that may still succeed

 

No. It cannot. A divided Congress will cause deferral to the governor certs of the electors. As i understand it.

 

In theory yes - but in the (I hope) unlikely event that occurred, SCOTUS would decide

 

What would then decide which electors are counted is the governors' certifications of the electors. The Supreme Court has no say. They certified the Biden electors in all the "contested" swing States already. It's over.

 

So you would be all in on someone blocking your phone calls based on your political ideology. Got it.

 

I'm sorry, but you have confused me. I am talking about Bob owning a bar, and Bob deciding that he, in his capacity as owner, wishes to allow his customers (and perhaps employees) to smoke inside the walls of that bar. You stated that you believe in private property ownership, as I very much do, and that belief leads me to conclude that it should be Bob's decision to make. Now, he might face some constraints from the property owner and terms of his lease, or maybe even his insurance company, but for the sake of simplicity let's assume that both the landlord and insurance company are fine with customer's/employees smoking in Bob's bar.

Under those circumstances, why is it not an affront to liberty for government to intervene, and tell Bob that they are going to make the decision for him? And what does Trump or a national emergency have to do with it at all?

Literally everything we do (or don't do) puts ours and possibly other's lives at risk. Getting out of bed carries a risk. So does not getting out of bed. Same for getting your family members out of bed, or not. I'm not going to go on listing examples, because that could take months, but the point is there is nothing that we do on a daily basis that does not involve some sort of risk.

So, yeah, arguably "allowing" a Church to have an indoor (or outdoor) meeting where masks are optional may carry a risk (though in no way has that been conclusively demonstrated), but so can not having that meeting. Perhaps someone who would otherwise have been in that meeting is involved in a fatal car accident, or a chance crossing of paths between a doctor and someone suffering from a condition during that meeting ends up curing that patient. The possibilities are endless (we're actually getting into chaos theory here), but also real.

The simple fact is that the overwhelming leading cause of death is birth. So far in the history of humanity, it's proven to be 100% fatal, no matter what steps we might take to try to mitigate it. The only even hypothetical cure would be for all of humanity to stop procreating, which will solve that problem, but that's one of those cases where the cure is worse than the disease.

By trying to eliminate all risk, you're attempting to play gawd, and control the uncontrollable.

No. My point is that property owners should have the right to determine what is or is not allowed on their property. If they want to allow smoking, they should be able to. Ditto if they want to prohibit it. If they want to allow customers to not wear masks, or conversely require that they must, it should be the property owner's decision. Same for having an orgy, or not, hosting an event for a church, or not, and once again I could go on and on for months and not finish listing examples.

Either we as a society believe in property ownership, or we do not. Of course, to throw yet another tangent into the conversation, real private property ownership would by necessity eliminate the government's right to tax said ownership. To do otherwise means that government is the actual owner. Which, sadly, is exactly how our society works.

No matter what we do, or don't do, eventually every last one of us is going to assume room temperature.

 

So, you think Twitter should just politely ask Trump to behave?

There is no hypocrisy or contradiction in acting decisively to oppose dictatorial aggression, be it physical, extra-legal or rhetorical.

 

Democrats pretend to see dictatorial behavior where it's not there, and then use those "decisive actions" to beat down the imagined dictatorial behavior.

It's nuts. If Democrat voters look at this retroactively in 2024, a lot of you guys are going to be blushing. 2016-2020 was the era of histrionics.

 

What Democrats see is irrelevant to what I see, and trying to overturn an election is dictatorial. By definition.

 

So long as the smoke remains within those wall, I'm fine with it. So long as everybody involved knows it, they only put themselves at risk. The virus they pick up at that bar does not remain in those walls. They bring it out with them and, when that happens, it will kill others. And, BTW, they also put the economy at risk. It should not be allowed!

As far as smoking, nothing. But my post wasn't about smoking.

I believe you are confused. I'm only talking about putting others at risk. You can do whatever the hell you want so long as that doesn't put others at risk.

Keeping a Church open, or a bar open, doesn't put just you at risk. As I said above, it puts the life of anybody you interact with at risk: clients, providers, family, co-workers, ... the guy you pass by when you walk down the street...

Wrong! They can allow people to smoke and give themselves, and others who attend such establishments, a lung cancer. But, for example, they should not have the "right" to allow a group of terrorist to use that property to plan mass murders. Just like they should also not be allowed to have some "right" to infect each other, and carry the pandemic to others that causes massive deaths. Mention contributing to leaving the national economy in shambles.

Sorry, but your "smoking" analogy does not work.

 

My phone calls are not a public forum, so that is a very stupid comparison. Got anything else?