Trump banned from Twitter

I would've been interested to hear about it. Shame that free speech is curtailed so often in a country that says they prize it so highly.

The same people who complain he got removed off a site are the same ones who defend a bakery's choice not to provide cakes for a same sex marriage. It's the same thing. You can't defend one without defending the other. Well you could but you'd be a pathetic hypocrite like 99.99999% of Republicans.

Your argument would have had merit if not for Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2018). According to the ruling of this case, Twitter is considered a public forum in which the public converses directly with POTUS and other government entities. As such, it was deemed a violation of the 1st amendment to deprive someone of such access. Given that ruling, it stands to reason that ANY citizen of America who is uses Twitter cannot have their account banned as doing so would deprive them of that 1st amendment right. This ruling also casts into serious doubt Twitter's status under Section 230.

That, legally, makes the gulf between a bakery which would have suffered at the hands of a free market and corporation worth billions who has (de facto) cornered the market on shitty opinion-posting quite large indeed. But, generally speaking, it's just a shame that bad opinions can't be expressed... we won't know what stupid things people think until they say them... or post memes about them.

The same people who complain about things they don't understand are the same ones who do no research on the matter. Fortunately, that's within everyone's control and is very easy to remedy, in most cases.

Borrowing this.

Any time.

Thank you.

In case you didn’t see it when SoulRiven sent it, maybe you will this time.

And instead of ignoring it, maybe you can have an actual rebuttal. Unless of course you admit to being completely wrong and totally decimated by their argument.

-Your argument would have had merit if not for Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2018). According to the ruling of this case, Twitter is considered a public forum in which the public converses directly with POTUS and other government entities. As such, it was deemed a violation of the 1st amendment to deprive someone of such access. Given that ruling, it stands to reason that ANY citizen of America who is uses Twitter cannot have their account banned as doing so would deprive them of that 1st amendment right. This ruling also casts into serious doubt Twitter's status under Section 230.

That, legally, makes the gulf between a bakery which would have suffered at the hands of a free market and corporation worth billions who has (de facto) cornered the market on shitty opinion-posting quite large indeed. But, generally speaking, it's just a shame that bad opinions can't be expressed... we won't know what stupid things people think until they say them... or post memes about them.

The same people who complain about things they don't understand are the same ones who do no research on the matter. Fortunately, that's within everyone's control and is very easy to remedy, in most cases.-

So, when can we expect your reply?

"You don't think it at all odd that someone who obviously disliked Trump (and whom Trump seemed to equally dislike) would talk crap about him?"

Not at all. Do you think it odd to talk crap about people you don't like?

The difference is that Mr. O'Donnell wrote the book in 1991.

It may come as a surprise to you but human a rather contradictory creature. They can say one thing and still do another. A person can hold racist views and still recognize that if they give to black charities, they can safely hold those views in private without putting their career or reputation at risk. A person can be racist, once have been racist (again, the book was written in 1991) and still have done things to overcompensate for these racist views. I have not gone out of my way to call him one. I considered including other generalized statements he's made over the years but recently he's been very careful to judge people by nationality and religion to dodge any recent claims that he is still a racist.

You don't have to just hate black people to be a racist. There are more than two skin tones. There are racist black people, and certainly the most racist people of the current era are arguably those of Asian descent.

I simply answered a question of one thing Trump has said that was racist.

Objectively, I see no point in proving he is or isn't a racist.

I mean... according to prevalent wisdom being issued from colleges/universities (and some internet personalities), everything is racist... especially if one subscribes to the theory of "micro-aggressions"; one of the most nauseatingly paranoid theories in social science to date. From that point of view, this very conversation could be condemned as racist.

Talking crap about anyone for any reason isn't odd at all... the news media and other entertainment industries have made quite the profit margin off of that model. What I find odd is that some eat up the crap being spewed as if it were a fine dining experience. Very few seem to be connoisseurs enough to pair finely aged logic with their rhetoric, however.

I know when the book was published... I too have read it. Struggled through it, to be more precise. I found it to be the dirt-dishing of a disgruntled employee who was mad at his boss' callous remarks... and getting passed over for a promotion. To clarify, the “I have black guys counting my money. … I hate it,” seemed to be a dumb joke about Jewish people being good with money... though you included that bit in your post as well. It's like when I say, I have my wife do all my math for me (she's Asian). I'm confused why you led with the "black guys" portion when you could've just said he was racist against Jews... which wouldn't have gone over since some in his family are Jewish. So why?

In terms of a racist, I like my racists that I can spot from a mile off. Those that are so loud and obnoxious about it so that everyone can see how pathetic they are. Trump was loud and obnoxious but if he were truly racist, he would never have done what he did for the black community. To say that it was some altruism to distract people from his hidden racism is foolish. If the measure of a racist now someone saying crass things but then going out of their way to help them... I suppose I'll take that racist over the one who was against school integration.

If Trump is found guilty, he'll go to jail... that's whatever. I was referring to the censorship portion of the conversation.

Looks like I keep triggering you snowflakes.... LOVE IT!

Yeah, that'll get Republicans more votes. Keep up the dumbf**kery!

Oh? When did the government take away your free speech, exactly?