Definition please.
1 Like
My list of possibilities is here. If you want to dive into each one, again you will have to wait till my next meeting with my constitutional law experts.
I simply posted them for the record so that when you all get surprised, I can say “I told you so”.
You know she’s Russian, don’t you? It probably means sausage or condom or some kind of electric labyrinth.
OK- make the government stop posting on twitter. Sure fine.
OK
Huh?
OK.
Sure- stop any government agency from ever posting on twitter. Honestly I wouldn’t care. Sure. Thats all you want?
The Government is not funding it, and Twitter didn"t sign a contract with them…Twitter is providing a service.
No, I didn’t know that. But it could explain my confusion at the term.
Of course you do…Is Twitter the only option they have? Doesn’t each Dept have their own website? They chose to use Twitter, they don’t have to.
Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying.
In the case in front of the court right now, Trump is asking the court to force Twitter to reinstate his account and provide him with personal relief.
But you believe that instead, the Court will hold that the government can’t use Twitter, or something about registering as a “political entity”.
Is that correct? It is difficult to figure out exactly what your argument is.
And the problem with- no government agency can ever post on social media is…even public service messages? Emergencies? etc. No way would the Supreme Court strangle governmental communication on every platform forever. Its silly and unnecessary.
After looking at it more carefully, I think he is hoping that literally any federal employee- all 2.1 million of them…can never post anything on twitter. Thats an even weirder argument.
I think he’s making the argument that federal employees cannot post official posts on Twitter, not that they can’t use it at all.
But nevertheless, it is a weird and nonsensical argument.
Ah right. OK-
Man they are looking for any way to get that dude his microphone back. Cant handle that his brand is toxic.
I’ve laid out a variety of possibilities. I wrote in English. The standard lib approach of “PROVE TO ME WITH LINKS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS” for the purpose of deflecting isn’t gonna work with me.
Further debate is meaningless until it plays out in the SCOTUS. Just like the border and abortion issue, there will be twists and turns as activist leftist judges try to force their will. Let’s debate after it’s all done.
1 Like
I didn’t ask you for any links or official documents. I’ve only asked you to explain your arguments in a cogent way.
I understand that it’s likely that you don’t even understand the arguments you’re trying to make, but it is not an inappropriate question to ask.
Ah, yes. The inevitable cop-out.
You people don’t even do your homework before posting. Just throw ■■■■ up on the wall in desperate hopes that some sticks and you won’t look like complete fools.
Whatever happened to progs who were a challenge to debate?
Did Twitter bid on a contract to be the provider?
She?!?!?! That’s it tzatziki muncher this means war 
1 Like
It was my fat fingers. Typo. I am a he. I think. Sad part is i don’t even remember what i was trying to say lol
It is quite adorable that you’ve found something to latch on to.
Maybe you can help me out, and tell me what “business” this consists of:
Maybe when you’re done with that, you can explain your ludicrous legal theories, instead of all these pathetic deflections.
But I’m definitely not expecting much.
Ahhh… my buddy’s back.
Hope you are well.
1 Like
