Yes to Trump and Parler Bans

Author: Danielle ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 57
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,722
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @drafterman
    well that isnt why i said it was a new low- i said it was a new low because  the left is ok with a  few megacorporation's determining what we are allowed to say and think on the internet?
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,566
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    They're allowed to do that because it's their platforms and they set the rules for their platforms and you agree to it when you sign up for those platforms. Why is it a "low" to be ok with that? Especially when the alternative is to make private corporations State mouthpieces?
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,722
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @drafterman
    there were no rule violations and adding on to the fact that this is a coordinated effort to steer the country left
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 50
    Forum posts: 1,696
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Danielle
    Who censors? Weak minds who refuse to hear alternative critical thinking. Of what are they afraid to hear? Democracy should not, and a real democracy is not afraid to hear anything. What can words do? Who is incited by words? Weak minds who do not have the strength of their own self control. 
    There are three kinds of people in the world:
    make things happen [by action, not words]
    watch what happens [too weak to be involved]
    wonder what happened [too dumb to be involved]
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,566
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    there were no rule violations and adding on to the fact that this is a coordinated effort to steer the country left
    You're missing the point: It's their platform, they get to say who can be on it. Why is this a problem for you?
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,722
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @drafterman
    its a problem because they are censoring conseratives unjustly
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,566
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    So if I create a platform, you don’t believe I should be able to say who gets to use it?
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,303
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman
    If I create a restaurant, can I be able to say who uses it? Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?

    You will rail against a men only or women only private club, but if Trump is the party banned, your liberalism suddenly takes a back seat to ownership rights.

    The question is not about whether big tech has the right to limit or restrict who use their platforms, but whether it is constitutional to limit or restrict based on gender, race, and religious or political criteria. The supreme Court has ruled over and over that this kind of discrimination is illegal.

    But we already know that when it comes to Trump, liberals will discard due process and fairness.

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,566
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @ethang5
    If I create a restaurant, can I be able to say who uses it?
    Barring specific protected classes of people, yes.

    Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?
    What the fuck are you talking about, ethang?

    You will rail against a men only or women only private club, but if Trump is the party banned, your liberalism suddenly takes a back seat to ownership rights.
    I've never in my life railed against men only or women only private clubs.

    The question is not about whether big tech has the right to limit or restrict who use their platforms, but whether it is constitutional to limit or restrict based on gender, race, and religious or political criteria. The supreme Court has ruled over and over that this kind of discrimination is illegal.
    Political discrimination is not illegal.

    But we already know that when it comes to Trump, liberals will discard due process and fairness.
    There is no due process to discard here. We aren't talking about governmental entities.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,303
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman
    If I create a restaurant, can I be able to say who uses it?
    Barring specific protected classes of people, yes.
    Is one of those "classes" the political class?

    Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?
    What the fuck are you talking about, ethang?
    You are a hypocrite. You know full well a restaurant that barred Republicans would be unconstitutional. So should an online platform that bars conservatives. Your opinion about discrimination changes if it is Trump and conservatives being discriminated against. Like all liberals, you are a hypocrite.

    You will rail against a men only or women only private club, but if Trump is the party banned, your liberalism suddenly takes a back seat to ownership rights.
    I've never in my life railed against men only or women only private clubs.
    No, you just call a common phrase "violence" and support the banning of Trump on a web platform for political reasons.

    The question is not about whether big tech has the right to limit or restrict who use their platforms, but whether it is constitutional to limit or restrict based on gender, race, and religious or political criteria. The supreme Court has ruled over and over that this kind of discrimination is illegal.

    Political discrimination is not illegal.
    Discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or political affiliation is illegal. It is your hypocrisy causing to to flip-flop now.

    As you are currently showing, when it comes to Trump, liberals will discard due process and fairness.

    There is no due process to discard here. We aren't talking about governmental entities.
    Trump is a person. A citizen. So was Kavenaugh. Your liberal hysteria will simply not be taken for granted anymore. Trump is not a racist, a fascist, or calling for violence. His comments are not "insurrection". It is you liberals who have been violent. It is you burning down cities. Attacking security officers and peaceful citizens. It is you employing cancel culture, identity politics, and fake news.

    I don't need you to grow integrity and admit it. 
  • Danielle
    Danielle avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,339
    3
    3
    3
    Danielle avatar
    Danielle
    --> @Jasmine
    Again, Twitter is a private company that is publicly traded on the stock market. You really ought to Google the difference if my explanation wasn't sufficient. 
  • Danielle
    Danielle avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,339
    3
    3
    3
    Danielle avatar
    Danielle
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    the government can easily bring big tech to its knees, its done it to tiktok and microsoft in the 90's


    I don't believe in government being able to force private companies to serve them. I'm not a socialist. 
  • Danielle
    Danielle avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,339
    3
    3
    3
    Danielle avatar
    Danielle
    --> @fauxlaw
    Social media generally does not censor conservatives. If the data proving this is not sufficient evidence (a fair suspicion since the Trump cult is not persuaded by facts) we also know they aren't being silenced cuz we can  still see them ranting and raving all over the internet. "WE ARE BEING SILENCED" they scream to a chorus of likeminded dullards with thousands of likes and shares lol. 

    Words can and do incite violence which is why the Supreme Court has upheld many limitations on free speech. I assume you didn't have the wherewithal to read the OP of the thread you commented on (it addresses all your monotonous talking points) so you probably won't bother to read any of the examples I could give you proving this. 

    Again conservatives are the ones who insist a private business has every right to discriminate based on their ideological beliefs, but watch them have an epic meltdown when they're the ones being discriminated against. Just imagine how they'd feel if government barred them from GETTING MARRIED which half of them don't even believe gays should have the right to do. But they have no problem screeching about their right to peddle false conspiracy theories on twitter. Fuckin clowns. 
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,566
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @ethang5

    Barring specific protected classes of people, yes.
    Is one of those "classes" the political class?
    No, political affiliation isn't a protected class,.


    Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?
    What hypocrisy have I displayed, ethang?

    What the fuck are you talking about, ethang?
    You are a hypocrite. You know full well a restaurant that barred Republicans would be unconstitutional.
    No it wouldn't.

    So should an online platform that bars conservatives.
    No it shouldn't.

    Your opinion about discrimination changes if it is Trump and conservatives being discriminated against. Like all liberals, you are a hypocrite.
    How has my opinion about discrimination changed?


    I've never in my life railed against men only or women only private clubs.
    No, you just call a common phrase "violence" and support the banning of Trump on a web platform for political reasons.
    I support the banning of Trump for inciting violence. If Twitter wanted to ban him for political reasons, they would have done so long ago. Note that the official POTUS account isn't banned, just Trump's personal account. Also note the hundreds and thousands of conservatives not calling for violence that are also not banned.


    Political discrimination is not illegal.
    Discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or political affiliation is illegal. It is your hypocrisy causing to to flip-flop now.
    Discrimination based on political affiliation isn't illegal, ethang. Race, color, national origina, religion, and gender are covered by the Civil Rights Act. Political affiliation is not.


    There is no due process to discard here. We aren't talking about governmental entities.
    Trump is a person. A citizen. So was Kavenaugh.
    I'm not disputing Trumps personhood.


    Your liberal hysteria will simply not be taken for granted anymore. Trump is not a racist, a fascist, or calling for violence.
    Trump is most certainly a racist and he was most certainly fanning the flames of insurrection.

    His comments are not "insurrection". It is you liberals who have been violent. It is you burning down cities. Attacking security officers and peaceful citizens. It is you employing cancel culture, identity politics, and fake news.
    I haven't done any of those things, ethang.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,722
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @Danielle
    they bring companies down to their knees all the time
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,303
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman

    No, political affiliation isn't a protected class,.
    That must be how you liberals justify your discrimination.

    Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?

    What hypocrisy have I displayed, ethang?
    Hypocrites usually do not see their hypocrisy. And I'm not trying to convince you of your hypocrisy.

    What the fuck are you talking about, ethang?
    You are a hypocrite. You know full well a restaurant that barred Republicans would be unconstitutional.

    No it wouldn't.
    That must be how you liberals rationalize your discrimination.

    So should an online platform that bars conservatives.

    No it shouldn't.
    That must be how you liberals explain your discrimination.

    Your opinion about discrimination changes if it is Trump and conservatives being discriminated against. Like all liberals, you are a hypocrite.

    How has my opinion about discrimination changed?
    When it's Trump being discriminated against, your opinion goes to, "it's ok and legal!" 

    I've never in my life railed against men only or women only private clubs.
    No, you just call a common phrase "violence" and support the banning of Trump on a web platform for political reasons.

    I support the banning of Trump for inciting violence.
    Liar. You did not want any Democrats banned when they called for actual violence. You did not want BLM banned when they were burning down  cities and assaulting tpeople. You support the banning of Trump because you are a hypocrite.

    If Twitter wanted to ban him for political reasons, they would have done so long ago.
    They could not, though they wanted to. Now they have, and it was purely political.

    Note that the official POTUS account isn't banned, just Trump's personal account.
    Like I said, political reasons.

    Also note the hundreds and thousands of conservatives not calling for violence that are also not banned.
    Right, the Senate taking up the case of conservatives being unfairly treated on Twitter and FB is just a non-story.

    Political discrimination is not illegal.
    Discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or political affiliation is illegal. It is your hypocrisy causing to to flip-flop now.

    Discrimination based on political affiliation isn't illegal, ethang. Race, color, national origina, religion, and gender are covered by the Civil Rights Act. Political affiliation is not.
    That must be how you liberals conceptualize your discrimination.

    There is no due process to discard here. We aren't talking about governmental entities.
    Trump is a person. A citizen. So was Kavenaugh.

    I'm not disputing Trumps personhood.
    No, you are opposing his due process rights.

    Your liberal hysteria will simply not be taken for granted anymore. Trump is not a racist, a fascist, or calling for violence.

    Trump is most certainly a racist and he was most certainly fanning the flames of insurrection.
    No he is not. Your liberal hysteria has joined your TDS. Thank God we had sane people in the Senate to keep the TDS loons at Bay.

    His comments are not "insurrection". It is you liberals who have been violent. It is you burning down cities. Attacking security officers and peaceful citizens. It is you employing cancel culture, identity politics, and fake news.

    I haven't done any of those things, ethang.
    It's called "derangement"  for a reason Draft.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,566
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @ethang5
    No, political affiliation isn't a protected class,.
    That must be how you liberals justify your discrimination.
    "Discrimination" in general is neither illegal nor bad. Human beings discriminate in some capacity every day. But it's an entirely a moot point because Trump wasn't blocked based on his political affiliation (or else he would have been blocked ages ago).

    Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?
    Since I am neither a liberal nor a hypocrite, I can't answer this.


    What hypocrisy have I displayed, ethang?
    Hypocrites usually do not see their hypocrisy. And I'm not trying to convince you of your hypocrisy.
    I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm asking you to identify it.


    What the fuck are you talking about, ethang?
    You are a hypocrite. You know full well a restaurant that barred Republicans would be unconstitutional.
    I don't know that at all, because it's false. Especially because restaurants have barred people based on political affiliation without legal consequence.

    You're talking out of your ass ethang. You just made this up (or are repeating something someone else made up) but you it's simply not backed up by reality and you can't back it up because there is nothing to back it up with. It's empty, hot air.


    How has my opinion about discrimination changed?
    When it's Trump being discriminated against, your opinion goes to, "it's ok and legal!" 
    And how is that a change?


    I've never in my life railed against men only or women only private clubs.
    No, you just call a common phrase "violence" and support the banning of Trump on a web platform for political reasons.
    No I don't.


    I support the banning of Trump for inciting violence.
    Liar. You did not want any Democrats banned when they called for actual violence.
    Yes I do.


    You did not want BLM banned when they were burning down  cities and assaulting tpeople.
    Yes I do.

    You support the banning of Trump because you are a hypocrite.
    I support the banning of Trump because he is a loatheseome person that spreads misinformation and incites violence.


    If Twitter wanted to ban him for political reasons, they would have done so long ago.
    They could not, though they wanted to. Now they have, and it was purely political.
    Why couldn't they before?


    Note that the official POTUS account isn't banned, just Trump's personal account.
    Like I said, political reasons.
    No, if it was political, they would have banned both.


    Also note the hundreds and thousands of conservatives not calling for violence that are also not banned.
    Right, the Senate taking up the case of conservatives being unfairly treated on Twitter and FB is just a non-story.
    Most of what Congress does is a non-story.


    Political discrimination is not illegal.
    Discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or political affiliation is illegal. It is your hypocrisy causing to to flip-flop now.
    Discrimination based on gender, race, and religion is illegal.

    Discrimination based on political affiliation is not.


    Discrimination based on political affiliation isn't illegal, ethang. Race, color, national origina, religion, and gender are covered by the Civil Rights Act. Political affiliation is not.
    That must be how you liberals conceptualize your discrimination.
    It's how the law conceptualizes illegal discrimination.


    There is no due process to discard here. We aren't talking about governmental entities.
    Trump is a person. A citizen. So was Kavenaugh.

    I'm not disputing Trumps personhood.
    No, you are opposing his due process rights.
    His due process rights only apply to government actions. Twitter is not the government. There is no due process with respect to Twitter.


    Your liberal hysteria will simply not be taken for granted anymore. Trump is not a racist, a fascist, or calling for violence.
    He is all of those things.


    Trump is most certainly a racist and he was most certainly fanning the flames of insurrection.
    No he is not. Your liberal hysteria has joined your TDS. Thank God we had sane people in the Senate to keep the TDS loons at Bay.

    His comments are not "insurrection". It is you liberals who have been violent. It is you burning down cities. Attacking security officers and peaceful citizens. It is you employing cancel culture, identity politics, and fake news.

    I haven't done any of those things, ethang.
    It's called "derangement"  for a reason Draft.
    Can you show how I have done any of those things? No, you cannot.
  • Jasmine
    Jasmine avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 126
    0
    3
    6
    Jasmine avatar
    Jasmine
    --> @Danielle
    Do you just mean that Twitter isn't governmentally funded? If so, just say that! Terms exist for a reason.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,303
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman
    Trump wasn't blocked based on his political affiliation...
    Of course he was. And now Democrats are talking about cancelling those who affiliated with Trump. Virtually everything done to Trump in the last 4 years by the Democrats was politically motivated. 

    Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?
    Since I am neither a liberal nor a hypocrite, I can't answer this.
    You won't answer because you are a hypocrite

    I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm asking you to identify it.
    I've pointed it out. You don't like it. Eh.

    You're talking out of your ass ethang. You just made this up (or are repeating something someone else made up) but you it's simply not backed up by reality and you can't back it up because there is nothing to back it up with. It's empty, hot air.
    Lol. Ok slick. You're still a hypocrite though.

    How has my opinion about discrimination changed?
    When it's Trump being discriminated against, your opinion goes to, "it's ok and legal!"

    And how is that a change?
    When it's one of your loony liberals you up in arms about discrimination.

    You support the banning of Trump because you are a hypocrite.

    I support the banning of Trump because he is a loatheseome person that spreads misinformation and incites violence.
    You and your loony Democrats opposed Trump before he even had a presidential record. You support the banning of Trump because you are a hypocrite.

    If Twitter wanted to ban him for political reasons, they would have done so long ago.
    They could not, though they wanted to. Now they have, and it was purely political.

    Why couldn't they before?
    The hypocrites were afraid the Senate would take away their special privileges.

    No, if it was political, they would have banned both.
    Nope. Because Biden is about to take over the account, and their hypocrisy would be harder to deny and hide if they had to reactivate it for him. 

    Most of what Congress does is a non-story.
    Yet the fake news MSM blares it from the rooftops when it is negative for Trump.

    His due process rights only apply to government actions. Twitter is not the government. There is no due process with respect to Twitter.
    Yet a renegade judge found that Trump could not block people from his Twitter account! That sound you hear is coming out your ass.

    Your liberal hysteria will simply not be taken for granted anymore. Trump is not a racist, a fascist, or calling for violence.

    He is all of those things.
    To a SJW Karen high on TDS, sure. Hypocrites are the loathsome people.

    Trump is most certainly a racist and he was most certainly fanning the flames of insurrection.
    No he is not. Your liberal hysteria has joined your TDS. Thank God we had sane people in the Senate to keep the TDS loons at Bay.

    His comments are not "insurrection". It is you liberals who have been violent. It is you burning down cities. Attacking security officers and peaceful citizens. It is you employing cancel culture, identity politics, and fake news.

    I haven't done any of those things, ethang.
    Antifa scum wore masks exactly for this reason. It's called "derangement" for a reason Draft.

    Can you show how I have done any of those things? No, you cannot.
    You supported all of those things. Remember your old posts remain up for all to see. I didn't make you a hypocrite Draft. It just seems to come with your particular political bent. 
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,566
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @ethang5
    Trump wasn't blocked based on his political affiliation...
    Of course he was. And now Democrats are talking about cancelling those who affiliated with Trump. Virtually everything done to Trump in the last 4 years by the Democrats was politically motivated. 
    We're not talking about the Democratic party, we're talking about Twitter.


    Since I am neither a liberal nor a hypocrite, I can't answer this.
    You won't answer because you are a hypocrite
    I won't answer because it's not a question about me.


    I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm asking you to identify it.
    I've pointed it out. You don't like it. Eh.
    You've made accusations, sure, but you've yet to point out or identify anything I've specifically done. You've made broad accusations about "liberals" and "Democrats" but nothing about me.


    How has my opinion about discrimination changed?
    When it's Trump being discriminated against, your opinion goes to, "it's ok and legal!"

    And how is that a change?
    When it's one of your loony liberals you up in arms about discrimination.
    I have never done this.


    I support the banning of Trump because he is a loatheseome person that spreads misinformation and incites violence.

    You and your loony Democrats opposed Trump before he even had a presidential record.
    So?


    If Twitter wanted to ban him for political reasons, they would have done so long ago.
    They could not, though they wanted to. Now they have, and it was purely political.

    Why couldn't they before?
    The hypocrites were afraid the Senate would take away their special privileges.
    I would hardly call the First Amendment a "special privilege" but it's nice of you to admit that the Republicans would try to take it away from people to protect their own.


    No, if it was political, they would have banned both.
    Nope. Because Biden is about to take over the account, and their hypocrisy would be harder to deny and hide if they had to reactivate it for him. 
    It wouldn't be hypocritical at all. I'm beginning to suspect you don't think you know what the word means.


    His due process rights only apply to government actions. Twitter is not the government. There is no due process with respect to Twitter.
    Yet a renegade judge found that Trump could not block people from his Twitter account!
    Right, restrictions on the government apply to actions taken by the government and its officials. Thus Twitter can ban the president because Twitter isn't the government, but the President can't block people because the President is a government official.


    I haven't done any of those things, ethang.
    Antifa scum wore masks exactly for this reason. It's called "derangement" for a reason Draft.
    Are you accusing me of a crime?


    Can you show how I have done any of those things? No, you cannot.
    You supported all of those things. Remember your old posts remain up for all to see. I didn't make you a hypocrite Draft. It just seems to come with your particular political bent. 
    I have supported none of those things. You are correct that my old posts remain up for all to see. So cite one. Cite one hypocritical post. Cite one post where I supported violence. Cite one post where I supported burning down cities. Cite one post where I supported attacking security officers and peaceful citizens.

    One. Just one post, ethang. You brought it up, my posts are there for all to see. CITE ONE you coward.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,303
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman
    Trump wasn't blocked based on his political affiliation...
    Of course he was. And now Democrats are talking about cancelling those who affiliated with Trump. Virtually everything done to Trump in the last 4 years by the Democrats was politically motivated.

    We're not talking about the Democratic party, we're talking about Twitter.
    Is there a difference?

    Since I am neither a liberal nor a hypocrite, I can't answer this.
    You won't answer because you are a hypocrite

    I won't answer because it's not a question about me.
    At least now you admit you won't answer, not that you can't answer. No worries, the fact that liberals are hypocrites is lost only on liberals.

    I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm asking you to identify it.
    I've pointed it out. You don't like it. Eh.
    You've made accusations, sure, but you've yet to point out or identify anything I've specifically done. You've made broad accusations about "liberals" and "Democrats" but nothing about me.
    I wonder how much longer your anal posts would be if you thought it was about you?

    How has my opinion about discrimination changed?
    When it's Trump being discriminated against, your opinion goes to, "it's ok and legal!"

    And how is that a change?
    When it's one of your loony liberals you up in arms about discrimination.

    I have never done this.
    Your past posts say you lie.

    I support the banning of Trump because he is a loatheseome person that spreads misinformation and incites violence.
    You and your loony Democrats opposed Trump before he even had a presidential record.

    So?
    TDS.

    If Twitter wanted to ban him for political reasons, they would have done so long ago.
    They could not, though they wanted to. Now they have, and it was purely political.

    Why couldn't they before?
    The hypocrites were afraid the Senate would take away their special privileges.

    I would hardly call the First Amendment a "special privilege" but it's nice of you to admit that the Republicans would try to take it away from people to protect their own.
    Where did I say "First Amendment"  hypocrite?

    No, if it was political, they would have banned both.
    Nope. Because Biden is about to take over the account, and their hypocrisy would be harder to deny and hide if they had to reactivate it for him. 
    It wouldn't be hypocritical at all. I'm beginning to suspect you don't think you know what the word means.
    You are a fine definition of the word.

    His due process rights only apply to government actions. Twitter is not the government. There is no due process with respect to Twitter.
    Yet a renegade judge found that Trump could not block people from his Twitter account!

    Right, restrictions on the government apply to actions taken by the government and its officials. Thus Twitter can ban the president because Twitter isn't the government, but the President can't block people because the President is a government official.
    Lol!! Thanks for proving my point. You said, "There is no due process with respect to Twitter." Yes, but when you're a dweeb getting blocked by Trump there IS.

    I haven't done any of those things, ethang.
    Antifa scum wore masks exactly for this reason. It's called "derangement" for a reason Draft.

    Are you accusing me of a crime?
    I'm accusing you of hypocrisy. Are you confused?

    Can you show how I have done any of those things? No, you cannot.
    You supported all of those things. Remember your old posts remain up for all to see. I didn't make you a hypocrite Draft. It just seems to come with your particular political bent. 

    I have supported none of those things. You are correct that my old posts remain up for all to see. So cite one. Cite one hypocritical post. Cite one post where I supported violence. Cite one post where I supported burning down cities. Cite one post where I supported attacking security officers and peaceful citizens.
    One. Just one post, ethang. You brought it up, my posts are there for all to see. CITE ONE you coward.
    You are a deluded leftie Draft. You are convinced that all your motives and behaviors are righteous. You would simply insist that your post was not hypocritical. Like Congress saying their 1st impeachment of Trump was not partisan.

    Like I said to you, I don't need your agreement. I'm not asking for your approval. You are a hypocrite, of course you will not admit to it publicly. Take heart in that you are not alone. The entire democratic Congress is right there with you.

    Adam Schiff has evidence of Russia collusion remember? 
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,566
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @ethang5
    We're not talking about the Democratic party, we're talking about Twitter.
    Is there a difference?
    Yes


    I have never done this.
    Your past posts say you lie.
    Which ones?


    So?
    TDS.
    Uhm, every political party opposites the other political party's candidate prior to their election. That's what campaigning is all about.


    I would hardly call the First Amendment a "special privilege" but it's nice of you to admit that the Republicans would try to take it away from people to protect their own.
    Where did I say "First Amendment"?
    The ability of Twitter to block whoever it wishes it protected by the First Amendment.


    Right, restrictions on the government apply to actions taken by the government and its officials. Thus Twitter can ban the president because Twitter isn't the government, but the President can't block people because the President is a government official.
    Lol!! Thanks for proving my point. You said, "There is no due process with respect to Twitter." Yes, but when you're a dweeb getting blocked by Trump there IS.
    Right, because you have due processes to actions taken against you by Trump (or any other government official) but not Twitter (which is not the government).


    Are you accusing me of a crime?
    I'm accusing you of hypocrisy. Are you confused?
    No, I'm asking you if you are accusing me of a crime. Are you?


    I have supported none of those things. You are correct that my old posts remain up for all to see. So cite one. Cite one hypocritical post. Cite one post where I supported violence. Cite one post where I supported burning down cities. Cite one post where I supported attacking security officers and peaceful citizens.
    One. Just one post, ethang. You brought it up, my posts are there for all to see. CITE ONE you coward.
    You are a deluded leftie Draft. You are convinced that all your motives and behaviors are righteous. You would simply insist that your post was not hypocritical. Like Congress saying their 1st impeachment of Trump was not partisan.

    Like I said to you, I don't need your agreement. I'm not asking for your approval. You are a hypocrite, of course you will not admit to it publicly. Take heart in that you are not alone. The entire democratic Congress is right there with you.

    Adam Schiff has evidence of Russia collusion remember? 
    A single post. Cite one. Coward.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,303
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman
    We're not talking about the Democratic party, we're talking about Twitter.
    Is there a difference?

    Yes
    Not in function. Twitter and the MSM are arms of the Democratic party.

    I have never done this.
    Your past posts say you lie.

    Which ones?
    If you don't lie, you won't have to remember when and where you did.


    So?
    TDS.

    Uhm, every political party opposites the other political party's candidate prior to their election. That's what campaigning is all about.
    TDS is still TDS

    The hypocrites were afraid the Senate would take away their special privileges.

    I would hardly call the First Amendment a "special privilege"...
    Where did I say "First Amendment"?

    The ability of Twitter to block whoever it wishes it protected by the First Amendment.
    Where did I say "First Amendment" hypocrite?

    Right, restrictions on the government apply to actions taken by the government and its officials. Thus Twitter can ban the president because Twitter isn't the government, but the President can't block people because the President is a government official.
    Lol!! Thanks for proving my point. You said, "There is no due process with respect to Twitter." Yes, but when you're a dweeb getting blocked by Trump there IS.

    Right, because you have due processes to actions taken against you by Trump...

    On Twitter. So "There IS due process with respect to Twitter."

    Are you accusing me of a crime?
    I'm accusing you of hypocrisy. Are you confused?

    No, I'm asking you if you are accusing me of a crime. Are you?
    You are confused. You are accusing Trump of a crime. I am accusing you of hypocrisy.

    I have supported none of those things. You are correct that my old posts remain up for all to see. So cite one. Cite one hypocritical post. Cite one post where I supported violence. Cite one post where I supported burning down cities. Cite one post where I supported attacking security officers and peaceful citizens.
    One. Just one post, ethang. You brought it up, my posts are there for all to see. CITE ONE you coward.
    You are a deluded leftie Draft. You are convinced that all your motives and behaviors are righteous. You would simply insist that your post was not hypocritical. Like Congress saying their 1st impeachment of Trump was not partisan.

    Like I said to you, I don't need your agreement. I'm not asking for your approval. You are a hypocrite, of course you will not admit to it publicly. Take heart in that you are not alone. The entire democratic Congress is right there with you.

    Adam Schiff has evidence of Russia collusion remember? 

    A single post. Cite one. Coward.
    Grade school taunts will not move me. Debating deranged people about whether they are deranged would be silly. I was brave enough to point out your hypocrisy.

    Sorry, it stinks in here.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,566
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @ethang5
    Yes
    Not in function. Twitter and the MSM are arms of the Democratic party.
    No they aren't.


    Which ones?
    If you don't lie, you won't have to remember when and where you did.
    Exactly, there are no such posts.



    Uhm, every political party opposites the other political party's candidate prior to their election. That's what campaigning is all about.
    TDS is still TDS
    So when Trump opposed Clinton before the election, that was TDS? You're not making any sense.


    The ability of Twitter to block whoever it wishes it protected by the First Amendment.
    Where did I say "First Amendment" hypocrite?
    Nowhere. I said it. The "special privilege" here is the first amendment. It is neither special nor a privilege.


    Right, restrictions on the government apply to actions taken by the government and its officials. Thus Twitter can ban the president because Twitter isn't the government, but the President can't block people because the President is a government official.
    Lol!! Thanks for proving my point. You said, "There is no due process with respect to Twitter." Yes, but when you're a dweeb getting blocked by Trump there IS.

    Right, because you have due processes to actions taken against you by Trump...

    On Twitter. So "There IS due process with respect to Twitter."
    Not, on Twitter, anywhere. You have due process with respect to Trump. The medium he uses is irrelevant.


    No, I'm asking you if you are accusing me of a crime. Are you?
    You are confused. You are accusing Trump of a crime. I am accusing you of hypocrisy.
    What was the point of mentioning that Antifa where masks when I responded that I have not engaged in criminal activities as them, except to imply I did engage in said criminal activities but was disguised?


    I have supported none of those things. You are correct that my old posts remain up for all to see. So cite one. Cite one hypocritical post. Cite one post where I supported violence. Cite one post where I supported burning down cities. Cite one post where I supported attacking security officers and peaceful citizens.
    One. Just one post, ethang. You brought it up, my posts are there for all to see. CITE ONE you coward.
    You are a deluded leftie Draft. You are convinced that all your motives and behaviors are righteous. You would simply insist that your post was not hypocritical.
    What post?


    A single post. Cite one. Coward.
    Grade school taunts will not move me. Debating deranged people about whether they are deranged would be silly. I was brave enough to point out your hypocrisy.
    Where did you point it out?
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,303
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman
    Not in function. Twitter and the MSM are arms of the Democratic party.

    No they aren't.
    Sure they are. Same with FB and Google and Amazon.

    Which ones?
    If you don't lie, you won't have to remember when and where you did.

    Exactly, there are no such posts.
    Your denials will not affect the sites server.

    Uhm, every political party opposites the other political party's candidate prior to their election. That's what campaigning is all about.
    TDS is still TDS

    So when Trump opposed Clinton before the election, that was TDS? You're not making any sense.
    You lack logic. I said nothing about opposites. You did. You are suffering from TDS. It is clear and obvious, but not to you.

    The ability of Twitter to block whoever it wishes it protected by the First Amendment.
    Where did I say "First Amendment" hypocrite?

    Nowhere.
    Thank you hypocrite.

     The "special privilege" here is the first amendment.
    No sir. I said it, I know what it is. Keep your hypocrisy to yourself please.

    Right, restrictions on the government apply to actions taken by the government and its officials. Thus Twitter can ban the president because Twitter isn't the government, but the President can't block people because the President is a government official.
    Lol!! Thanks for proving my point. You said, "There is no due process with respect to Twitter." Yes, but when you're a dweeb getting blocked by Trump there IS.

    Right, because you have due processes to actions taken against you by Trump...

    On Twitter. So "There IS due process with respect to Twitter."

    Not, on Twitter, anywhere.
    You said, "...wrespect to Twitter" Did you forget?

    No, I'm asking you if you are accusing me of a crime. Are you?
    You are confused. You are accusing Trump of a crime. I am accusing you of hypocrisy.

    What was the point of mentioning that Antifa where masks when I responded that I have not engaged in criminal activities as them, except to imply I did engage in said criminal activities but was disguised?
    Or to show your denials could not be validated.

    I have supported none of those things. You are correct that my old posts remain up for all to see. So cite one. Cite one hypocritical post. Cite one post where I supported violence. Cite one post where I supported burning down cities. Cite one post where I supported attacking security officers and peaceful citizens.
    One. Just one post, ethang. You brought it up, my posts are there for all to see. CITE ONE you coward.
    You are a deluded leftie Draft. You are convinced that all your motives and behaviors are righteous. You would simply insist that your post was not hypocritical.

    What post?
    A single post. Cite one. Coward.
    Grade school taunts will not move me. Debating deranged people about whether they are deranged would be silly. I was brave enough to point out your hypocrisy.

    Where did you point it out?
    Pointing out hypocrisy to hypocritical people would be silly. Hopefully, after enough time has passed, you will recover from TDS and regain your sanity.