OT: Elon Musk Offers to Buy Twitter for $42 Billion In Cash

[DividedPi]

So if they were earnestly looking for her or other lawmakers, why did they stop? They had the whole building to themselves right? Why were there no confrontations? the answer is because that is not what there intentions were. Just look at all the stuff posted while they were inside. It posts of them sitting at desks in the capital smiling. It is not posts of them frantically searching the building with guns drawn looking to execute some type of coup. Would it have made them happy to make Nancy uncomfortable? Sure it would have, they don't like her.
Are you seriously telling me that despite an all out effort to find lawmakers in that building, not only were they not successful in not killing one, they couldn't even find ONE? You can't be that stupid. I guarantee you, just me by myself could have found at least one lawmaker in that building. Somehow however, thousands of people intent on a coup could not find a single lawmaker in a building full of them.

Didn’t some chick get shot and killed as part of a mob trying to bust through a window to get to where a bunch of lawmakers were sheltering? I saw plenty of videos and photos of what looked like violent confrontations to me. Just because those making the effort were wildly ineffective doesn’t mean their intentions were harmless.

 

[dpic73]

So if they were earnestly looking for her or other lawmakers, why did they stop? They had the whole building to themselves right? Why were there no confrontations? the answer is because that is not what there intentions were. Just look at all the stuff posted while they were inside. It posts of them sitting at desks in the capital smiling. It is not posts of them frantically searching the building with guns drawn looking to execute some type of coup. Would it have made them happy to make Nancy uncomfortable? Sure it would have, they don't like her.
Are you seriously telling me that despite an all out effort to find lawmakers in that building, not only were they not successful in not killing one, they couldn't even find ONE? You can't be that stupid. I guarantee you, just me by myself could have found at least one lawmaker in that building. Somehow however, thousands of people intent on a coup could not find a single lawmaker in a building full of them.

I'm sorry man, you just don't want to admit what's true. They searched for her office, they broke into it and she wasn't there so that means you know they wouldn't have done anything to her? Also, they did find the lawmakers but couldn't get to them in time before they were ushered out a back exit. What the heck have you been paying attention to?

 

[CUT93]

I'm sorry man, you just don't want to admit what's true. They searched for her office, they broke into it and she wasn't there so that means you know they wouldn't have done anything to her? Also, they did find the lawmakers but couldn't get to them in time before they were ushered out a back exit. What the heck have you been paying attention to?

But somehow YOU KNOW they would have, right? Come on man. So 2000+ people who breached the building found the lawmakers, but couldn't get to them? right. If they had been there to do what you claim, they would have used the guns they had to fire on the doors or obstructions to get into whatever room the lawmakers were in. There are zero reports of anything like that having happened.
They were a bunch of pissed off people at a protest that took it too far. Not as far as some of the BLM protest, but too far. They got carried away as mobs often do and forced their way in. They went through the building and probably wrecked some stuff. BUT, there is no way on earth 2000+ people who had planned and orchestrated a coup do not show up without guns and can not get to a single lawmaker. they would have had layouts of the building and known where to go immediately instead of meandering around the building aimlessly. Could there have been one or two nutjobs who may have harmed someone given the chance? I imagine there probably were. However, the idea that there was some concerted effort of a coup is just stupid and completely unsupported by facts. Including the fact that not one shot was fired inside the capital by a group who were supposed in the process of a coup attempt. not only that, I have not seen one report of any protester in the capital even having a gun.
In summary, your position is that a group of people who planned a coup with the intent of killing lawmakers, not only did not fire a shot, but didn't even have any guns in the building. Does that sound like any coup you have EVER heard of?

 

[CUT93]

So, the lady who was shot to death wasn’t an ‘innocent person’ being killed? What about the cop? They were in on the plot? How are so many trump supporters being convicted in court? Because Sunday school trips rarely end in convictions. Lawmakers have to die for it to be real? The fact that they tried and failed isn’t enough?

See my post below. You going to tell me a group planning a coup , not only did not fire a shot, but not one of them even had a gun in the capital building?

 

[dpic73]

But somehow YOU KNOW they would have, right? Come on man. So 2000+ people who breached the building found the lawmakers, but couldn't get to them? right. If they had been there to do what you claim, they would have used the guns they had to fire on the doors or obstructions to get into whatever room the lawmakers were in. There are zero reports of anything like that having happened.
They were a bunch of pissed off people at a protest that took it too far. Not as far as some of the BLM protest, but too far. They got carried away as mobs often do and forced their way in. They went through the building and probably wrecked some stuff. BUT, there is no way on earth 2000+ people who had planned and orchestrated a coup do not show up without guns and can not get to a single lawmaker. they would have had layouts of the building and known where to go immediately instead of meandering around the building aimlessly. Could there have been one or two nutjobs who may have harmed someone given the chance? I imagine there probably were. However, the idea that there was some concerted effort of a coup is just stupid and completely unsupported by facts. Including the fact that not one shot was fired inside the capital by a group who were supposed in the process of a coup attempt. not only that, I have not seen one report of any protester in the capital even having a gun.
In summary, your position is that a group of people who planned a coup with the intent of killing lawmakers, not only did not fire a shot, but didn't even have any guns in the building. Does that sound like any coup you have EVER heard of?

 

[dpic73]

See my post below. You going to tell me a group planning a coup , not only did not fire a shot, but not one of them even had a gun in the capital building?

When people show you who they are, you should believe them

"In his guilty plea, James, a military veteran, admitted that, from November 2020 through January 2021, he conspired with other Oath Keeper members and affiliates to use force to prevent, hinder and delay the execution of the laws of the United States governing the transfer of presidential power. He used encrypted and private communications, equipped himself with a variety of weapons, donned combat and tactical gear, and was prepared to answer a call to take up arms."

Leader of Alabama Chapter of Oath Keepers Pleads Guilty to Seditious Conspiracy and Obstruction of Congress for Efforts to Stop Transfer of Power Following 2020 Presidential Election

A regional leader of the Oath Keepers pleaded guilty today to seditious conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding for his actions before, during and after the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. His and others’ actions disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to...

www.justice.gov

"Charles Donohoe, 34, pleaded guilty during an appearance in federal court in Washington to charges of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and assaulting or impeding federal officers. His plea agreement includes a provision to cooperate in the ongoing Justice Department cases against other Proud Boys members."

Proud Boys member pleads guilty to conspiracy in Jan. 6 riot

A North Carolina man has become the second member of the Proud Boys to plead guilty to conspiring with other members of the extremist group to stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote

abcnews.go.com

"Navarro also referred to former Vice President Mike Pence as the “quarterback” of the offense, suggesting they had wanted Pence to go along with the plot.
Recent details uncovered by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection appear to confirm Navarro’s characterization of the forces that had been building to undermine the vote.
Thousands of pages of emails and texts released by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows have revealed, among many other things, a PowerPoint “coup plot” that was cooked up by Trump allies in a “command center” at the Willard Hotel leading up to Jan. 6.
Under the plan, Trump was to declare a national emergency, baselessly citing foreign “control” of electronic voting systems.
Right-wing attorney John Eastman penned a pair of “coup memos” on how to overturn the election by challenging electoral votes — and met with Meadows and Trump in the Oval Office to discuss the strategy the day before the insurrection, The New York Times reported.
A top aide for the former vice president said Eastman pressured Pence to “betray his oath” of office and the Constitution in a bid to convince him to baselessly challenge the electoral votes."

Trump Ally Peter Navarro Says The Jan. 6 Coup Conspiracy Part Out Loud

Navarro used a football analogy to describe the day of the Capitol riots and called Bannon a "hero."

news.yahoo.com

 

[Chevaker]

The one thing I have not heard any discussion on is why Musk would not just start his own Twitter clone. The technology is simple and his persona and financial resources would attract users. The obvious value of Twitter is its established user base.

 

[Dbatz]

So, the lady who was shot to death wasn’t an ‘innocent person’ being killed? What about the cop? They were in on the plot? How are so many trump supporters being convicted in court? Because Sunday school trips rarely end in convictions. Lawmakers have to die for it to be real? The fact that they tried and failed isn’t enough?

Name one specific threat that was made, name one threat or act of violence that was made and / or acted upon. Tell me how this is anywhere near as bad as the actual terrorist BLM riots were..

 

[WapPride]

FB algorithmed ads in 2016 to try to help Hillary win. Hundreds if not thousands of examples of this kind of political influencing over the years. Our corrupt government will never go after big techs obvious abuse of its liability exemption. They get too much money from them. It’s pay to play in DC and has been for generations.

Must be why once Russia got all those sanctions against them and all the bots were deleted from FB that every top 10 news article viewed on Facebook went from all Dan bongino and Ben Shapiro articles to your standard accredited news organizations instead

 

[CUT93]

When people show you who they are, you should believe them

"In his guilty plea, James, a military veteran, admitted that, from November 2020 through January 2021, he conspired with other Oath Keeper members and affiliates to use force to prevent, hinder and delay the execution of the laws of the United States governing the transfer of presidential power. He used encrypted and private communications, equipped himself with a variety of weapons, donned combat and tactical gear, and was prepared to answer a call to take up arms."

Leader of Alabama Chapter of Oath Keepers Pleads Guilty to Seditious Conspiracy and Obstruction of Congress for Efforts to Stop Transfer of Power Following 2020 Presidential Election

A regional leader of the Oath Keepers pleaded guilty today to seditious conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding for his actions before, during and after the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. His and others’ actions disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to...

www.justice.gov

"Charles Donohoe, 34, pleaded guilty during an appearance in federal court in Washington to charges of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and assaulting or impeding federal officers. His plea agreement includes a provision to cooperate in the ongoing Justice Department cases against other Proud Boys members."

Proud Boys member pleads guilty to conspiracy in Jan. 6 riot

A North Carolina man has become the second member of the Proud Boys to plead guilty to conspiring with other members of the extremist group to stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote

abcnews.go.com

"Navarro also referred to former Vice President Mike Pence as the “quarterback” of the offense, suggesting they had wanted Pence to go along with the plot.
Recent details uncovered by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection appear to confirm Navarro’s characterization of the forces that had been building to undermine the vote.
Thousands of pages of emails and texts released by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows have revealed, among many other things, a PowerPoint “coup plot” that was cooked up by Trump allies in a “command center” at the Willard Hotel leading up to Jan. 6.
Under the plan, Trump was to declare a national emergency, baselessly citing foreign “control” of electronic voting systems.
Right-wing attorney John Eastman penned a pair of “coup memos” on how to overturn the election by challenging electoral votes — and met with Meadows and Trump in the Oval Office to discuss the strategy the day before the insurrection, The New York Times reported.
A top aide for the former vice president said Eastman pressured Pence to “betray his oath” of office and the Constitution in a bid to convince him to baselessly challenge the electoral votes."

Trump Ally Peter Navarro Says The Jan. 6 Coup Conspiracy Part Out Loud

Navarro used a football analogy to describe the day of the Capitol riots and called Bannon a "hero."

news.yahoo.com

Okay where to start. I never said I don't believe there are some lunatics out there, and he appears to be one. The james guy is one of the "nut jobs" that I said probably is at every protest. However, it says he pleaded guilty to grabbing a cop by his vest and was expelled shortly after he entered the building. He clearly was there for a very short time, but I will admit he might have been crazy enough to do something. Again, I said there were probably a couple of crazy people, there are at every protest. While the article said he brought a gun, I think it meant he brought it with him to DC, not in the capital building. None of the charges against him are gun related and I am fairly certain there would be gun charges if he had it in the building. The FBI stated no one they detained or arrested in the capital building had a gun.
The Donohue guy pleaded to what you have bolded. Everyone there was guilty of this. They obstructed an official proceeding and at lest impeded federal officers who were trying to keep the crowd from entering the building. There are not ANY charges, must less convictions of anyone trying to kill/harm lawmakers. None.
The article goes on to state that Pence was seen as "the quarterback" of this offensive(coup), yet somehow you stated he was in jeopardy from the mob he is stated to be the quarterback of. Something does not add up there. Also, it states this conspiracy plan was for trump to declare a national emergency, which we know did not happen. The part of Eastman's plan you have bolded was to challenge electoral votes- which has literally nothing to do with storming the capital- you get that right? It says Trumps "coup plan" was to challenge the electoral votes, not storm the capital building and kill people- according to that article. If you believe the bolded part, then all the the storming of the capital building is completely outside of what trump intended.

I'll ask again, why did they not carry out their plan? They were at the door to the house chambers and beating on the door and trying to break through when one of the capital police shot the female protester trying to get in. At that point why would none of these people have returned fire when one of their co conspirators had been shot? The answer is two fold, imo. First, they did not have guns. Second they were not really there to harm lawmakers. They were there to disrupt. I'd be willing to bet most of them had no plan at all, they just showed up to protest and followed the crowd.
If you have a plan for a coup, you don't get to the house chambers where all the reps are and let a few people beat on the door with sticks and furniture. You have a plan on how to breach the doors. You also bring guns and shot back when they shoot one of your co conspirators. None of that happened.

 

[WapPride]

But somehow YOU KNOW they would have, right? Come on man. So 2000+ people who breached the building found the lawmakers, but couldn't get to them? right. If they had been there to do what you claim, they would have used the guns they had to fire on the doors or obstructions to get into whatever room the lawmakers were in. There are zero reports of anything like that having happened.
They were a bunch of pissed off people at a protest that took it too far. Not as far as some of the BLM protest, but too far. They got carried away as mobs often do and forced their way in. They went through the building and probably wrecked some stuff. BUT, there is no way on earth 2000+ people who had planned and orchestrated a coup do not show up without guns and can not get to a single lawmaker. they would have had layouts of the building and known where to go immediately instead of meandering around the building aimlessly. Could there have been one or two nutjobs who may have harmed someone given the chance? I imagine there probably were. However, the idea that there was some concerted effort of a coup is just stupid and completely unsupported by facts. Including the fact that not one shot was fired inside the capital by a group who were supposed in the process of a coup attempt. not only that, I have not seen one report of any protester in the capital even having a gun.
In summary, your position is that a group of people who planned a coup with the intent of killing lawmakers, not only did not fire a shot, but didn't even have any guns in the building. Does that sound like any coup you have EVER heard of?

Cmon baby you can’t be serious

if the 1/6 guys destroyed a bunch of Starbucks and McDonald’s instead of the Capitol Building would it have been worse?

 

[WapPride]

Okay where to start. I never said I don't believe there are some lunatics out there, and he appears to be one. The james guy is one of the "nut jobs" that I said probably is at every protest. However, it says he pleaded guilty to grabbing a cop by his vest and was expelled shortly after he entered the building. He clearly was there for a very short time, but I will admit he might have been crazy enough to do something. Again, I said there were probably a couple of crazy people, there are at every protest. While the article said he brought a gun, I think it meant he brought it with him to DC, not in the capital building. None of the charges against him are gun related and I am fairly certain there would be gun charges if he had it in the building. The FBI stated no one they detained or arrested in the capital building had a gun.
The Donohue guy pleaded to what you have bolded. Everyone there was guilty of this. They obstructed an official proceeding and at lest impeded federal officers who were trying to keep the crowd from entering the building. There are not ANY charges, must less convictions of anyone trying to kill/harm lawmakers. None.
The article goes on to state that Pence was seen as "the quarterback" of this offensive(coup), yet somehow you stated he was in jeopardy from the mob he is stated to be the quarterback of. Something does not add up there. Also, it states this conspiracy plan was for trump to declare a national emergency, which we know did not happen. The part of Eastman's plan you have bolded was to challenge electoral votes- which has literally nothing to do with storming the capital- you get that right? It says Trumps "coup plan" was to challenge the electoral votes, not storm the capital building and kill people- according to that article. If you believe the bolded part, then all the the storming of the capital building is completely outside of what trump intended.

I'll ask again, why did they not carry out their plan? They were at the door to the house chambers and beating on the door and trying to break through when one of the capital police shot the female protester trying to get in. At that point why would none of these people have returned fire when one of their co conspirators had been shot? The answer is two fold, imo. First, they did not have guns. Second they were not really there to harm lawmakers. They were there to disrupt. I'd be willing to bet most of them had no plan at all, they just showed up to protest and followed the crowd.
If you have a plan for a coup, you don't get to the house chambers where all the reps are and let a few people beat on the door with sticks and furniture. You have a plan on how to breach the doors. You also bring guns and shot back when they shoot one of your co conspirators. None of that happened.

Lol just a peaceful protest, huh? Standing at the chamber of congress and “beating on the door trying to break through”

 

[douggainey]

They didn't ban the President of the United States. They banned a pathological lying criminal who brainwashed millions of people into believing something happened that didn't - and they acted on it. It was absolutely the right thing to do to that EX- President.

Ok

 

[CUT93]

Cmon baby you can’t be serious

if the 1/6 guys destroyed a bunch of Starbucks and McDonald’s instead of the Capitol Building would it have been worse?

You make it sound like they destroyed the capital building, which they did not. The answer is no, it would not have been worse. However, they did not cause near as much destruction or kill near as many people as dem protestors.

 

[CUT93]

Lol just a peaceful protest, huh? Standing at the chamber of congress and “beating on the door trying to break through”

No where did I say it was a peaceful protest. Show where I even implied that. You are confusing me with the msm describing dem protestor riots that killed people and caused millions of $$ of damage as peaceful protest.

I also think we are getting away from what I originally said. The protestors at the capital were WRONG. They all should have been arrested and charged. As a matter of fact, they should never had been allowed to breach the building. I would have warned them and shot the first one that came through the barricade, but that is beside the point. What I have said repeatedly is that if this was not some conspiratorial pre planned coup to take the govt or harm lawmakers. If that were the case, they would have been armed with guns and had better plans than to beat on the door with sticks or furniture.

 

[clempzenbill]

They banned him two days after January 6th when he sat in the WH and did absolutely nothing for over three hours while our capital building and all of our lawmakers were being attacked. How he gets a pass on that day from far too many people is one of the greatest mysteries of my lifetime.

Guess you didn’t know his staff asked the Capital police weeks in advance, at least three times for increased security and they also requested National Guard presence and all requests were denied/ignored. Are you aware it was revealed in Federal court this week that there were over twenty disguised FBI agents imbedded in the crowd? I don’t care what you think of anyone or their opinions but banning any speech is an extremely slippery slope. Look at speech in the EU, it’s Orwellian how they determine what’s allowed and not allowed. People are going to jail for “hate speech” whatever the hell that is- which is whatever their govt says it is!!! Once you allow a government or a government protected business to define and allow/disallow public speech it is a matter of time before free speech is effectively dead. And yes it’s happening here with big tech leading the way while our government turns a blind eye, so the money keeps flowing into their campaign coffers. Big tech is affecting election numbers with algorithms as it is, which should scare the hell out of those who don’t have their head in the sand and pretend like it doesn’t happen.

 

[WapPride]

The biggest problem with big tech is allowing a platform for the most gullible and most stupid portion of the human people to have a medium for communication and discussion

 

[CUT93]

The biggest problem with big tech is allowing a platform for the most gullible and most stupid portion of the human people to have a medium for communication and discussion

That is exactly what they want. TI is the closest thing to social media I have. I don't do FB or Twitter.

 

[DW4_2016]

Name one specific threat that was made, name one threat or act of violence that was made and / or acted upon. Tell me how this is anywhere near as bad as the actual terrorist BLM riots were..

Hero derp.

 

[TigerGrowls]

You're getting sidetracked but are you telling me that if people post about an ongoing investigation, no matter the outcome, they should be banned? How does that make sense? And as far as Hunter's laptop goes, at the time of the story, most news organizations didn't have the ability to verify what was being alleged because they didn't have access to the laptop. Giuliana and the Post were the only ones with access at that time. Plus, with timing that suspicious, why would they want to take the chance on reporting on something that may have turned out to be disinformation perfectly timed to disrupt his father's candidacy? These things are not the same as banning Trump for hypnotizing a huge portion of the population into believing an audacious lie that turned into the worst attack on our Capitol since the War of 1812.

And he shovels this crap with a straight face day after day. I give you credit for that.

Question - Are you being paid to post on this board?

Question - Are you a member of any communist or socialist organization?

 

[TigerGrowls]

That’s cool and all but what does “overbearing government rule and constraint” have to do with Twitter censoring it’s users? Wouldn’t the government stepping in to regulate a private company be a better example of the overbearance your are advocating dying for than that private company regulating itself?

It’s so funny seeing formerly freedom loving small government conservatives whining about the government not stepping in to expand it’s power and control in a massive way. You are all free to go start your own social media platform and regulate it however you see fit! Embrace the free market capitalism you claim to admire rather than putting your hand out for the government to take something from another and give it to you. No one is forcing anyone to use Twitter.

Let twitter continue what they are doing, but I want their govt 230 protections ended so private citizens and groups can sue them until the cows come home.

 

[TigerGrowls]

OMG, Your pretzel logic takes so many turns I feel like a Twizzler. But to your first point, what the hell do you mean there was no way to know??? It was absolutely known that there was no significant fraud UNLESS you've been conditioned to disbelieve every single government agency, election official and Secretary of State because a special needs cantaloupe told you to! We knew the election was fair and accurate - even Trump's Director of Homeland Security's CISA said it was the cleanest election in history. Scary how easy it is to make people disbelieve every single source of truth and instead go along with the fact-less ramblings of the biggest liar in American political history. C'mon man!

He is smarter than you.

 

[TigerGrowls]

But somehow YOU KNOW they would have, right? Come on man. So 2000+ people who breached the building found the lawmakers, but couldn't get to them? right. If they had been there to do what you claim, they would have used the guns they had to fire on the doors or obstructions to get into whatever room the lawmakers were in. There are zero reports of anything like that having happened.
They were a bunch of pissed off people at a protest that took it too far. Not as far as some of the BLM protest, but too far. They got carried away as mobs often do and forced their way in. They went through the building and probably wrecked some stuff. BUT, there is no way on earth 2000+ people who had planned and orchestrated a coup do not show up without guns and can not get to a single lawmaker. they would have had layouts of the building and known where to go immediately instead of meandering around the building aimlessly. Could there have been one or two nutjobs who may have harmed someone given the chance? I imagine there probably were. However, the idea that there was some concerted effort of a coup is just stupid and completely unsupported by facts. Including the fact that not one shot was fired inside the capital by a group who were supposed in the process of a coup attempt. not only that, I have not seen one report of any protester in the capital even having a gun.
In summary, your position is that a group of people who planned a coup with the intent of killing lawmakers, not only did not fire a shot, but didn't even have any guns in the building. Does that sound like any coup you have EVER heard of?

Bro these guys are not smart or they are just playing their part and using the blind eye strategy.

 

[TigerGrowls]

J6 was and has always been a deep state false flag operation to cover the real insurrection that occurred on 11/3/2020. Undercover FBI, capitol police and select antifa operatives dressed as Trump supporters facilitated any violence that occurred other than the Trump supporters that were killed by police.....yes it was more than one.

 

[PawJourney]

That’s cool and all but what does “overbearing government rule and constraint” have to do with Twitter censoring it’s users? Wouldn’t the government stepping in to regulate a private company be a better example of the overbearance your are advocating dying for than that private company regulating itself?

It’s so funny seeing formerly freedom loving small government conservatives whining about the government not stepping in to expand it’s power and control in a massive way. You are all free to go start your own social media platform and regulate it however you see fit! Embrace the free market capitalism you claim to admire rather than putting your hand out for the government to take something from another and give it to you. No one is forcing anyone to use Twitter.

If a platform is a platform, then it is not content that is controlled by the platform owner, but the poster and is free speech limited only by judicial caselaw. (Free speech is not fully unfettered.) Government should stay out of this because it should not be regulated.

A social media platform that exercises editorial oversight is currently subject to federal regulations (television, radio, print, etc.). When a platform owner steps in and edits free speech, then the existing government regulations apply.

I'm not advocating for more regulations but equal application of existing regulations. The only reason one would let

Why can't you just say they did the right thing? If someone on my side of the fence did the same thing, I promise you I would no longer support them and would wholeheartedly be in favor of a private company banning them. Wrong is wrong no matter the party. This bs about Twitter muffling conservative voices is just that. They ban LIARS who have huge followings.

Free speech is an AMERICAN right, not a Left or Right freedom. Right and wrong are subjective standards (fits the #MyTruth model which at least prefaces that kind of truth as individualized in nature). With subjective standards, the application is subject to the values and views of the editor and cannot be fair or objectivelabeled.

Free speech in America is not completely unfettered because there are legal reasons (i.e., cannot yell fire in a movie theater for fun because it creates a stampede that could harm or kill others; speak libelous things at your peril because if truly libelous you can be sued and pay the person you libeled). America has a well established balance for free speech without subjective censorship.

As long as the Left or Right stays between the established legal boundaries, speak freely. If someone speaks something erroneous or "wrong in my opinion," then it is my personal responsibility as the consumer of information to provide weight to the speech. I am a fully capable person that does not need Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube or any social media platform to provide info warnings, particularly when those warnings have an editorial bias.

If those platforms want to be unregulated, then no warnings. If the platforms want to provide editorial warnings, then they should be regulated to let the idiots know that the warnings are editorial and biased in nature and that the platform is swaying opinions. FCAA has regulations that work, but it has not chosen to follow the law.

Platforms have a choice and consumers have a choice. The fact that there's a hearty debate on this thread is both exciting (because that is what free speech is about) and alarming (because free speech should not include arbitrary subjective censorship - your truth, your right, and your wrong likely are not mine so we both should have equal access).

 

[PawJourney]

Didn’t some chick get shot and killed as part of a mob trying to bust through a window to get to where a bunch of lawmakers were sheltering? I saw plenty of videos and photos of what looked like violent confrontations to me. Just because those making the effort were wildly ineffective doesn’t mean their intentions were harmless.

Based upon this rationale, Black Lives Matter should be banned. They destroyed more property and more deaths were associated with that movement. Please help me understand if your line applies EQUALLY to all who are not peacefully protesting. The US Constitution only grants Americans the right to peacefully assembly, so if the third state (the media - all media (mainstream and fringe media), stays out of it, law enforcement could equally apply the law and arrest all infringers be they Left or Right.

Free speech and peaceful assembly cannot be one-sided in application or oversight. Cherrypicking speech and assembly is by definition unfree.

 

[dpic73]

Okay where to start. I never said I don't believe there are some lunatics out there, and he appears to be one. The james guy is one of the "nut jobs" that I said probably is at every protest. However, it says he pleaded guilty to grabbing a cop by his vest and was expelled shortly after he entered the building. He clearly was there for a very short time, but I will admit he might have been crazy enough to do something. Again, I said there were probably a couple of crazy people, there are at every protest. While the article said he brought a gun, I think it meant he brought it with him to DC, not in the capital building. None of the charges against him are gun related and I am fairly certain there would be gun charges if he had it in the building. The FBI stated no one they detained or arrested in the capital building had a gun.
The Donohue guy pleaded to what you have bolded. Everyone there was guilty of this. They obstructed an official proceeding and at lest impeded federal officers who were trying to keep the crowd from entering the building. There are not ANY charges, must less convictions of anyone trying to kill/harm lawmakers. None.
The article goes on to state that Pence was seen as "the quarterback" of this offensive(coup), yet somehow you stated he was in jeopardy from the mob he is stated to be the quarterback of. Something does not add up there. Also, it states this conspiracy plan was for trump to declare a national emergency, which we know did not happen. The part of Eastman's plan you have bolded was to challenge electoral votes- which has literally nothing to do with storming the capital- you get that right? It says Trumps "coup plan" was to challenge the electoral votes, not storm the capital building and kill people- according to that article. If you believe the bolded part, then all the the storming of the capital building is completely outside of what trump intended.

I'll ask again, why did they not carry out their plan? They were at the door to the house chambers and beating on the door and trying to break through when one of the capital police shot the female protester trying to get in. At that point why would none of these people have returned fire when one of their co conspirators had been shot? The answer is two fold, imo. First, they did not have guns. Second they were not really there to harm lawmakers. They were there to disrupt. I'd be willing to bet most of them had no plan at all, they just showed up to protest and followed the crowd.
If you have a plan for a coup, you don't get to the house chambers where all the reps are and let a few people beat on the door with sticks and furniture. You have a plan on how to breach the doors. You also bring guns and shot back when they shoot one of your co conspirators. None of that happened.

You're trying too hard. All the facts support that Trump and others were plotting behind the scenes to steal the election - call it what you want but it was a plan to illegally overturn the will of the people. Just because their plan didn't involve guns, doesn't mean it wasn't a coup attempt - it clearly was. No word salad can change those facts.

 

[CUT93]

You're trying too hard. All the facts support that Trump and others were plotting behind the scenes to steal the election - call it what you want but it was a plan to illegally overturn the will of the people. Just because their plan didn't involve guns, doesn't mean it wasn't a coup attempt - it clearly was. No word salad can change those facts.

Tell me specifically what he did to illegally (try to) overturn the election.

 

[clempzenbill]

The biggest problem with big tech is allowing a platform for the most gullible and most stupid portion of the human people to have a medium for communication and discussion

Free speech must be free, you can’t allow some and not others because someone, ie government will decide, and they’ll decide on what favors them keeping power and keeping its subjects obedient as much as possible.

This is why information about Covid was throttled and managed by big tech and big media- to keep as many as possible willing to have their rights taken away for a phony National Emergency. It’s been studied and revealed that the lockdowns had no effect on the death toll and that the death toll was purposely exaggerated to promote fear. No vaccine ever created will protect against variants infecting and spreading. Why anyone trusts government at this point is beyond me. I knew this two years ago, you can look up my posts from 2020 and since then. It wasn’t that hard to figure out once you get outside the big tech/media box and look around if you can think objectively for yourself and problem solve.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Truth.

Twitter Management Fight for Control of Company So They Can Continue to Censor President Trump and Promote Iranian Leaders on The Site | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

While ’s management fights to keep control of the Big Tech giant, the greatest participant of the platform, President Trump, remains banned while Iranian leaders roam free. As we reported this week, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk made a bid for . The company appears to be more interested...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[DW4_2016]

Tell me specifically what he did to illegally (try to) overturn the election.

Trump, on tape, presses Ga. official to 'find' him votes

ATLANTA (AP) — President Donald Trump pressured Georgia's Republican secretary of state to “find” enough votes to overturn Joe Biden's win in the state's presidential election, repeatedly citing disproven claims of fraud and raising the prospect of “criminal offense" if officials did not change the

apnews.com

 

[TigerGrowls]

Trump, on tape, presses Ga. official to 'find' him votes

ATLANTA (AP) — President Donald Trump pressured Georgia's Republican secretary of state to “find” enough votes to overturn Joe Biden's win in the state's presidential election, repeatedly citing disproven claims of fraud and raising the prospect of “criminal offense" if officials did not change the

apnews.com

FAKE NEWS!!

 

[DW4_2016]

FAKE NEWS!!

so, the quotes are fake? when he asked the guy to find him the votes he was just kidding?

 

[TigerGrowls]

so, the quotes are fake? when he asked the guy to find him the votes he was just kidding?

He didnt say that brocefus. I cant help your ability to interpret the english language within contact though. Go ahead and watch some law shows on tv for a few years and then come back when you figure it out.

 

[dpic73]

He didnt say that brocefus. I cant help your ability to interpret the english language within contact though. Go ahead and watch some law shows on tv for a few years and then come back when you figure it out.

Hmm, so you interpreted the call better because you watched Cagney & Lacey?

 

[jakefest]

The feds really don't want Elon to own Twitter by the looks of it........those forms are very often filed late but can't recall an investigation as a result, at least not one that was made public.

Feds Open Investigation Into Elon Musk, Report Says

The U.S. government has reportedly opened an investigation into Elon Musk’s business dealings surrounding his recent $44 billion purchase of Twitter. “The Securities and Exchange Commission is probing Mr. Musk’s tardy submission of a public form that investors must file when they buy more than...

www.dailywire.com

 

[nytigerfan]

The feds really don't want Elon to own Twitter by the looks of it........those forms are very often filed late but can't recall an investigation as a result, at least not one that was made public.

Feds Open Investigation Into Elon Musk, Report Says

The U.S. government has reportedly opened an investigation into Elon Musk’s business dealings surrounding his recent $44 billion purchase of Twitter. “The Securities and Exchange Commission is probing Mr. Musk’s tardy submission of a public form that investors must file when they buy more than...

www.dailywire.com

And apparently Musk doesnt really want to buy twitter either...

Musk says $44 billion Twitter deal on hold over fake account data

Musk is entitled to ask for information on its operations following the signing of the deal, but this is meant to help him prepare for his ownership of Twitter, not to carry out due diligence and reopen negotiations.

www.reuters.com

 

[TigerGrowls]

Project Veritas doing work.

Project Veritas: Senior Engineer Lashes Out at Elon Musk, Admits "Twitter Does Not Believe in Free Speech," - 'We Are All Commie as F*ck' (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Project Veritas on Monday released undercover video of a senior engineer lashing out at Elon Musk and admitting the tech giant doesn’t believe in free speech.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Project Veritas: Senior Engineer Lashes Out at Elon Musk, Admits “Twitter Does Not Believe in Free Speech,” – ‘We Are All Commie as F*ck’ (VIDEO)​

By Cristina Laila
Published May 16, 2022 at 6:27pm

Project Veritas on Monday released undercover video of a senior Twitter engineer lashing out at Elon Musk and admitting the tech giant doesn’t believe in free speech.
Twitter Senior Engineer, Siru Murugesan, said the following to an undercover PV journalist:

• “Twitter does not believe in free speech… Elon believes in free speech.”
• “Our jobs are at stake, he’s a capitalist and we weren’t really operating as capitalists, more like very socialist. Like we’re all like commie as ****.”
• “We did all we could to like revolt against it. A lot of employees were revolting against it.”

More from Project Veritas:
TRENDING: Project Veritas: Senior Engineer Lashes Out at Elon Musk, Admits "Twitter Does Not Believe in Free Speech," - 'We Are All Commie as F*ck' (VIDEO)

Project Veritas published explosive undercover footage on Monday night featuring one of Twitter’s senior engineers discussing the dynamics behind internal reactions to the acquisition of the tech company by business magnate, Elon Musk.
In the video, Twitter Sr. Engineer, Siru Murugesan, says many of his colleagues have voiced “this would be my last day if it happens,” referring to Musk’s high publicized intended purchase of Twitter. He also says employees at Twitter are “stress-eating” and “worried for our jobs.”
More significant than those soundbites are the reasons he says employees at Twitter feel this way.
“Our jobs are at stake; he’s a capitalist and we weren’t really operating as capitalists, more like very socialist,” Murugesan says before adding, “we’re all like commie as f**k.”
Murugesan also pointed to free speech being one of the core issues employees at Twitter have with its new likely owner, Elon Musk.
When asked about the difference between Twitter’s definition of free speech and Musk’s, the Sr. Engineer left no room for interpretation. “Twitter does not believe in free speech,” said Murugesan answering the undercover journalist.

WATCH:

 

[jakefest]

And apparently Musk doesnt really want to buy twitter either...

Musk says $44 billion Twitter deal on hold over fake account data

Musk is entitled to ask for information on its operations following the signing of the deal, but this is meant to help him prepare for his ownership of Twitter, not to carry out due diligence and reopen negotiations.

www.reuters.com

He's just preparing them for re-trade at a lower multiple. Can't imagine he would buy that much stock, spend that sort of capital on associated M&A costs and risk the $1B breakup fee just because he was bored.

 

[nytigerfan]

He's just preparing them for re-trade at a lower multiple. Can't imagine he would buy that much stock, spend that sort of capital on associated M&A costs and risk the $1B breakup fee just because he was bored.

I don't think the deal goes through. He is already violating agreements with them. He made an offer to buy at $54 per share. Then publicizes proprietary information to drive the stock price down while shitting all over the company.

Is this normal? I am actually asking because I don't know.