Constitution Wins...Trump Loses

[Pogo]

Because no one knows what Trump Tweets...

It's not the knowing..it's the right to reply--which you would have known..had you read the link--but why would you, right?

So now no one can be banned from Twitter because everyone has the right to reply to the tweets of public figures?

Twitter cannot moderate their own forums?

Twitter has "forums"?

 

[Pogo]

Trump can't block users from his Twitter feed, federal judge rules

free speech..it's a thing:

"President Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users for the political views they have expressed, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Wednesday.

Blocking users from viewing his Twitter account — a feature offered by the social media platform — is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her ruling.

"While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the President’s personal First Amendment rights, he cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him," Buchwald wrote.

The government had argued that blocked individuals could still access the president’s tweets. The judge agreed but said that even considering the president's First Amendment rights, preventing users from interacting directly with him on Twitter represented a violation of a "real, albeit narrow, slice of speech.""

BS, as usual.

The same way “News” outlets don’t allow replies to ideological “news” stories.

Like the way I was banned from CNS "News" after I called out their bullshit?

Go ahead. Ask me for a link. You know you want to.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Because no one knows what Trump Tweets...

It's not the knowing..it's the right to reply--which you would have known..had you read the link--but why would you, right?

So now no one can be banned from Twitter because everyone has the right to reply to the tweets of public figures?

Twitter cannot moderate their own forums?

Twitter has "forums"?

It has rules that this judge thinks should apply to some but not others.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

My post is meant to inform...and to provoke conversation.

what a crock

Lazy fucks..one and all.

That's more like it

When you snip parts of a post out and respond to them..you are being intellectually dishonest..I know this matters not at all to you..but I'd be remiss if i didn't point it out.

When they come out with Frankenstein 2..perhaps a better grade of brain?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

You are aware that you're not an authority on the Constitution, right?

...

Because you don't like what I have to say about it ...
Well guess what ... Your opinion on that matter doesn't mean shit either ... No one granted you the authority to determine such matters ...

.​

You're right, my opinion is equally as worthless as yours.

But I'm not sharing my opinion- I'm sharing the judges opinion.

And guess who's opinion actually matters?

The judge gave a personal, non-binding opinion. The judge did not make a judgment.

See the difference?

No, the judge made a ruling, with the full force of legal precedent.

She didn't order an injunction to force him to do it - yet.

Right. She gave an opinion. The POTUS' opinion carries more weight.

Nope..we are a nation of laws..and Trump is subject to them. It is odd..that on the one hand you'll argue that Trump is a private citizen and thus has the same 1st amendment right as you or I..and then argue that because he's the President he's not subject to a judge's ruling?

 

[Aba Incieni]

Because you don't like what I have to say about it ...
Well guess what ... Your opinion on that matter doesn't mean shit either ... No one granted you the authority to determine such matters ...

.​

You're right, my opinion is equally as worthless as yours.

But I'm not sharing my opinion- I'm sharing the judges opinion.

And guess who's opinion actually matters?

The judge gave a personal, non-binding opinion. The judge did not make a judgment.

See the difference?

No, the judge made a ruling, with the full force of legal precedent.

She didn't order an injunction to force him to do it - yet.

Right. She gave an opinion. The POTUS' opinion carries more weight.

Nope..we are a nation of laws..and Trump is subject to them. It is odd..that on the one hand you'll argue that Trump is a private citizen and thus has the same 1st amendment right as you or I..and then argue that because he's the President he's not subject to a judge's ruling?

The judge ruled that Twitter's own rules apply to some but not others.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

When you snip parts of a post out and respond to them..you are being intellectually dishonest..I know this matters not at all to you..but I'd be remiss if i didn't point it out.

it's when you misuse a term like intellectually dishonest to pretend you have a valid point is what makes you remiss, the only thing you got right was pointing it out

When they come out with Frankenstein 2..perhaps a better grade of brain?

It will happen upon necessity, what public school did you go to?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're right, my opinion is equally as worthless as yours.

But I'm not sharing my opinion- I'm sharing the judges opinion.

And guess who's opinion actually matters?

The judge gave a personal, non-binding opinion. The judge did not make a judgment.

See the difference?

No, the judge made a ruling, with the full force of legal precedent.

She didn't order an injunction to force him to do it - yet.

Right. She gave an opinion. The POTUS' opinion carries more weight.

Nope..we are a nation of laws..and Trump is subject to them. It is odd..that on the one hand you'll argue that Trump is a private citizen and thus has the same 1st amendment right as you or I..and then argue that because he's the President he's not subject to a judge's ruling?

The judge ruled that Twitter's own rules apply to some but not others.

The judge didn't make a ruling about Twitter's rules, she made a ruling about the Constitution.

Twitter's rules have nothing to do with this.

 

[Aba Incieni]

The judge gave a personal, non-binding opinion. The judge did not make a judgment.

See the difference?

No, the judge made a ruling, with the full force of legal precedent.

She didn't order an injunction to force him to do it - yet.

Right. She gave an opinion. The POTUS' opinion carries more weight.

Nope..we are a nation of laws..and Trump is subject to them. It is odd..that on the one hand you'll argue that Trump is a private citizen and thus has the same 1st amendment right as you or I..and then argue that because he's the President he's not subject to a judge's ruling?

The judge ruled that Twitter's own rules apply to some but not others.

The judge didn't make a ruling about Twitter's rules, she made a ruling about the Constitution.

Twitter's rules have nothing to do with this.

Then the POTUS can block anyone he chooses. Just like you can.

Or did she rule there are two sets of rules applied to those she chooses?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, the judge made a ruling, with the full force of legal precedent.

She didn't order an injunction to force him to do it - yet.

Right. She gave an opinion. The POTUS' opinion carries more weight.

Nope..we are a nation of laws..and Trump is subject to them. It is odd..that on the one hand you'll argue that Trump is a private citizen and thus has the same 1st amendment right as you or I..and then argue that because he's the President he's not subject to a judge's ruling?

The judge ruled that Twitter's own rules apply to some but not others.

The judge didn't make a ruling about Twitter's rules, she made a ruling about the Constitution.

Twitter's rules have nothing to do with this.

Then the POTUS can block anyone he chooses. Just like you can.

Or did she rule there are two sets of rules applied to those she chooses?

Yes, there are "two sets" of rules - those that the government has to follow, and those that the people have to follow.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? The entire Constitution is essentially made up of rules that the government has to follow, but don't apply to private individuals.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

When you snip parts of a post out and respond to them..you are being intellectually dishonest

another crock

 

[Aba Incieni]

Right. She gave an opinion. The POTUS' opinion carries more weight.

Nope..we are a nation of laws..and Trump is subject to them. It is odd..that on the one hand you'll argue that Trump is a private citizen and thus has the same 1st amendment right as you or I..and then argue that because he's the President he's not subject to a judge's ruling?

The judge ruled that Twitter's own rules apply to some but not others.

The judge didn't make a ruling about Twitter's rules, she made a ruling about the Constitution.

Twitter's rules have nothing to do with this.

Then the POTUS can block anyone he chooses. Just like you can.

Or did she rule there are two sets of rules applied to those she chooses?

Yes, there are "two sets" of rules - those that the government has to follow, and those that the people have to follow.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? The entire Constitution is essentially made up of rules that the government has to follow, but don't apply to private individuals.

Cool. Two sets of rules, one for the elite and one for the serf.

Must be a Democrat.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nope..we are a nation of laws..and Trump is subject to them. It is odd..that on the one hand you'll argue that Trump is a private citizen and thus has the same 1st amendment right as you or I..and then argue that because he's the President he's not subject to a judge's ruling?

The judge ruled that Twitter's own rules apply to some but not others.

The judge didn't make a ruling about Twitter's rules, she made a ruling about the Constitution.

Twitter's rules have nothing to do with this.

Then the POTUS can block anyone he chooses. Just like you can.

Or did she rule there are two sets of rules applied to those she chooses?

Yes, there are "two sets" of rules - those that the government has to follow, and those that the people have to follow.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? The entire Constitution is essentially made up of rules that the government has to follow, but don't apply to private individuals.

Cool. Two sets of rules, one for the elite and one for the serf.

Must be a Democrat.

Do you believe that the same "rules" apply to you and to the President?

Try walking past the guards at the White House, and see what happens.

 

[Aba Incieni]

The judge ruled that Twitter's own rules apply to some but not others.

The judge didn't make a ruling about Twitter's rules, she made a ruling about the Constitution.

Twitter's rules have nothing to do with this.

Then the POTUS can block anyone he chooses. Just like you can.

Or did she rule there are two sets of rules applied to those she chooses?

Yes, there are "two sets" of rules - those that the government has to follow, and those that the people have to follow.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? The entire Constitution is essentially made up of rules that the government has to follow, but don't apply to private individuals.

Cool. Two sets of rules, one for the elite and one for the serf.

Must be a Democrat.

Do you believe that the same "rules" apply to you and to the President?

Try walking past the guards at the White House, and see what happens.

It's not a government account.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The judge didn't make a ruling about Twitter's rules, she made a ruling about the Constitution.

Twitter's rules have nothing to do with this.

Then the POTUS can block anyone he chooses. Just like you can.

Or did she rule there are two sets of rules applied to those she chooses?

Yes, there are "two sets" of rules - those that the government has to follow, and those that the people have to follow.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? The entire Constitution is essentially made up of rules that the government has to follow, but don't apply to private individuals.

Cool. Two sets of rules, one for the elite and one for the serf.

Must be a Democrat.

Do you believe that the same "rules" apply to you and to the President?

Try walking past the guards at the White House, and see what happens.

It's not a government account.

It's the President's account.

White House: Trump's tweets are 'official statements' - CNNPolitics

 

[Aba Incieni]

Then the POTUS can block anyone he chooses. Just like you can.

Or did she rule there are two sets of rules applied to those she chooses?

Yes, there are "two sets" of rules - those that the government has to follow, and those that the people have to follow.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? The entire Constitution is essentially made up of rules that the government has to follow, but don't apply to private individuals.

Cool. Two sets of rules, one for the elite and one for the serf.

Must be a Democrat.

Do you believe that the same "rules" apply to you and to the President?

Try walking past the guards at the White House, and see what happens.

It's not a government account.

It's the President's account.

White House: Trump's tweets are 'official statements' - CNNPolitics

His personal account.

Do we have access to his personal wardrobe, as well? I want his #MAGA hat.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The judge didn't make a ruling about Twitter's rules, she made a ruling about the Constitution.

Twitter's rules have nothing to do with this.

Then the POTUS can block anyone he chooses. Just like you can.

Or did she rule there are two sets of rules applied to those she chooses?

Yes, there are "two sets" of rules - those that the government has to follow, and those that the people have to follow.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? The entire Constitution is essentially made up of rules that the government has to follow, but don't apply to private individuals.

Cool. Two sets of rules, one for the elite and one for the serf.

Must be a Democrat.

Do you believe that the same "rules" apply to you and to the President?

Try walking past the guards at the White House, and see what happens.

It's not a government account.

Trump says it is....he did this to keep Twitter from the possibility of closing his twitter account..which they can do..to anyone they wish..according to their TOS..but they cannot do it to Trump..because it's an official govt. record.

Trump cannot have it both ways..and neither can you.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Yes, there are "two sets" of rules - those that the government has to follow, and those that the people have to follow.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? The entire Constitution is essentially made up of rules that the government has to follow, but don't apply to private individuals.

Cool. Two sets of rules, one for the elite and one for the serf.

Must be a Democrat.

Do you believe that the same "rules" apply to you and to the President?

Try walking past the guards at the White House, and see what happens.

It's not a government account.

It's the President's account.

White House: Trump's tweets are 'official statements' - CNNPolitics

His personal account.

Do we have access to his personal wardrobe, as well? I want his #MAGA hat.

Wow..you just do not get it....it is NOT his personal account. It's an official govt. record...Trump himself said so!

 

[Aba Incieni]

Then the POTUS can block anyone he chooses. Just like you can.

Or did she rule there are two sets of rules applied to those she chooses?

Yes, there are "two sets" of rules - those that the government has to follow, and those that the people have to follow.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? The entire Constitution is essentially made up of rules that the government has to follow, but don't apply to private individuals.

Cool. Two sets of rules, one for the elite and one for the serf.

Must be a Democrat.

Do you believe that the same "rules" apply to you and to the President?

Try walking past the guards at the White House, and see what happens.

It's not a government account.

Trump says it is....he did this to keep Twitter from the possibility of closing his twitter account..which they can do..to anyone they wish..according to their TOS..but they cannot do it to Trump..because it's an official govt. record.

Trump cannot have it both ways..and neither can you.

Twitter won't close his account. He made them famous.

But of course, according to their TOS they can close his personal account. That is equal application of the law.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Cool. Two sets of rules, one for the elite and one for the serf.

Must be a Democrat.

Do you believe that the same "rules" apply to you and to the President?

Try walking past the guards at the White House, and see what happens.

It's not a government account.

It's the President's account.

White House: Trump's tweets are 'official statements' - CNNPolitics

His personal account.

Do we have access to his personal wardrobe, as well? I want his #MAGA hat.

Wow..you just do not get it....it is NOT his personal account. It's an official govt. record...Trump himself said so!

Same account he used as a private citizen.