McCarthy:
“The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters,” McCarthy said on the House floor. “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump."
The FAR doesn’t state that every employee of contractors or subcontractors must have a covid vaccine either. But … here we are.
Me, 1
You, 0
LOL…Another opinion…
No TOS violation, just opinion of others on the mindset and motivation of yet others…
What cowards that want to censor Trump…absolute rhetorical lightweights.
The opinion of the private company Twitter is that Trump violated their TOS policy by actively promoting conspiracy theories that were leading to violence. And their opinion is backed up by the heads of the GOP in Congress. See above.
Did you forget what thread you’re in?
We’re talking about Trump’s lawsuit against Twitter, not vaccine mandates.
FAR does state that any federal requirements for contractors/subs must be communicated via a contract.
FAR describes the mechanism for which contracts can change. The vaccine mandates followed those requirements.
TOS cannot be used for unconstitutional purposes. Suppose a Democrat KKK on-line service required posters to use racial epithets with every post. Do you think the Democrats in the federal government could get away with using that platform?
That is the censorship justification.
It is wrong…specifically in the leading to violence mantra.
These types of bogus allegations fill the histories of once robust democracies.
Here is what you are forgetting. Twitter is the arbiter of what is or isn’t in violation of the TOS. It does not matter what you or I think, we are using THEIR service and they can dictate who is banned and for what, so long as they are not violating law.
Huh??
There are tons of creepy racist forums out there. They are allowed to be there as long as they don’t engage in active hate crimes or other illegal activities. Now most of them won’t be supported by larger hosting companies- for good reason.
And no - Twitter banning people is not unconstitutional. Otherwise you’d have to say that banning people in this forum is unconstitutional.
Silliness.
Take it up with the heads of your GOP McConnell and McCarthy. They are the ones who said it. Write them a letter.
Not forgetting…challenging.
They cannot simultaneously have a monopoly and disenfranchise protected political discourse.
Cons are deeply attached to the idea of being able to spread disinformation, conspiracies and Q Anon memes via social media. Get super sad when they cant.
Y’all hate twitter? My dudes- go start your own Parler/Stormfront/Gab/Gettr anything goes platforms.
Capitalism!
Ok, how did Twitter violate the constitution?
This service wouldn’t exist because democrat kkk existed in 1920, not 2020.
Well Republicans use Gab, which is a known hotspot for White Supremacists… so I think we have a recent example of what that’s like.
Revisionists like to think that Trump was just- you know- asking some honest questions about possible voting irregularities. Thats like saying the mob at the Capitol were “just tourists.”
From Mediaite:
ABC News’ Jon Karl has released an excerpt of Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show , which explores Trump’s last attempts to hang onto power after losing the 2020 election. According to Karl’s sources, Trump boasted about the size of the crowd that gathered on January 6th, and he was enthralled as he watched his supporters — fueled by his election lies — as they rioted through the Capitol in a violent attempt to overthrow his defeat to Joe Biden .
The book says Trump argued with aides in the White House’s private dining room as they tried to get him to call off the riot. When Trump finally agreed to release a video statement, Karl reports that the video had to be re-recorded “several times before they got it right, and in earlier rejected versions, Trump neglected to call on his supporters to leave the Capitol.”
The book also reportedly delves into Trump’s phone call that day with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). McCarthy is quoted asking Trump to call off his supporters as he and other lawmakers were being evacuated, but Trump retorted, “They are just more upset than you because they believe it more than you, Kevin.”
You guys are apparently into stream of consciousness posting. I used the subcontractor example to show that your first attempt at parsing, wiggling, and pretending - that is, the statement that a check from the US Treasury to the business entity must occur or else that entity is not required to obey any federal requirements - was a fail. And then once I did that and you had no more wiggle room in the must-cut-a-check claim , you then jumped to the FAR simply because i said “subcontractor”.
And then when that didn’t work, then took it to “the contract” I can talk “Ts and Cs” too if go there.
But you are diverting attention to my original point in a stream-of-consciousness fashion. My original point was that the federal government’s use of Twitter increases income to Twitter. And I maintain that it is THAT connection that an intelligent member of SCOTUS will recognize as a business arrangement that should be handled as any other business arrangement that results in government rules forced upon a private business entity.
Use your crazy stream of consciousness on someone else.
Wait I’m trying to get this out of your post-
Are you saying that the government using twitter to post information - therefore gives revenue to twitter- and therefore constitutes a business arrangement?
And this should lead to what again?
Row row row your boat gently down the stream of consciousness…
Merrily merrily merrily merrily
Your argument is ridiculous.
You don’t get to decide for a business if their rules were broken, they do. Further, they can ban Trump for any reason they want. It is their business.
First of all, I think you’re confusing posts. I’m the one who poked the holes in your “subcontractor” argument.
How does the government’s use of Twitter increase income to Twitter? Twitter gets their income from selling ads.
More importantly, how exactly do you believe these “other business arraignments” are regulated?
