trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[Nostra]

I will post this again since not a single board Dimwinger has even attempted to explain the obvious double standard..............



This is from the Twitter User Agreement. Hey Leftards, explain how the Taliban, Iranian leaders, and Hamas have not violated numerous parts of this: (I'm sure our terrorist loving members will have some sort of lameass spin)


October 2020

There is no place on Twitter for violent organizations, including terrorist organizations, violent extremist groups, or individuals who affiliate with and promote their illicit activities. The violence that these groups engage in and/or promote jeopardizes the physical safety and well-being of those targeted. Our assessments under this policy are informed by national and international terrorism designations, as well as our violent extremist group and violent organizations criteria.


You may not threaten or promote terrorism or violent extremism.

Violent extremist groups are those that meet all of the below criteria:

• identify through their stated purpose, publications, or actions as an extremist group;
• have engaged in, or currently engage in, violence and/or the promotion of violence as a means to further their cause; and
• target civilians in their acts and/or promotion of violence.

Other violent organizations

Other violent organizations are those that meet all of the below criteria:

• a collection of individuals with a shared purpose; and
• have systematically targeted civilians with violence.

We examine a group’s activities both on and off Twitter to determine whether they satisfy the above criteria.

What is in violation of this policy?​

Under this policy, you can’t state an intention to inflict violence on a specific person or group of people. We define intent to include statements like “I will”, “I’m going to”, or “I plan to”, as well as conditional statements like “If you do X, I will”. Violations of this policy include, but are not limited to:

• threatening to kill someone;
• threatening to sexually assault someone;
• threatening to seriously hurt someone and/or commit a other violent act that could lead to someone’s death or serious physical injury; and
• asking for or offering a financial reward in exchange for inflicting violence on a specific person or group of people.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I will post this again since not a single board Dimwinger has even attempted to explain the obvious double standard..............



This is from the Twitter User Agreement. Hey Leftards, explain how the Taliban, Iranian leaders, and Hamas have not violated numerous parts of this: (I'm sure our terrorist loving members will have some sort of lameass spin)


October 2020

There is no place on Twitter for violent organizations, including terrorist organizations, violent extremist groups, or individuals who affiliate with and promote their illicit activities. The violence that these groups engage in and/or promote jeopardizes the physical safety and well-being of those targeted. Our assessments under this policy are informed by national and international terrorism designations, as well as our violent extremist group and violent organizations criteria.


You may not threaten or promote terrorism or violent extremism.

Violent extremist groups are those that meet all of the below criteria:

• identify through their stated purpose, publications, or actions as an extremist group;
• have engaged in, or currently engage in, violence and/or the promotion of violence as a means to further their cause; and
• target civilians in their acts and/or promotion of violence.

Other violent organizations

Other violent organizations are those that meet all of the below criteria:

• a collection of individuals with a shared purpose; and
• have systematically targeted civilians with violence.

We examine a group’s activities both on and off Twitter to determine whether they satisfy the above criteria.

What is in violation of this policy?​

Under this policy, you can’t state an intention to inflict violence on a specific person or group of people. We define intent to include statements like “I will”, “I’m going to”, or “I plan to”, as well as conditional statements like “If you do X, I will”. Violations of this policy include, but are not limited to:

• threatening to kill someone;
• threatening to sexually assault someone;
• threatening to seriously hurt someone and/or commit a other violent act that could lead to someone’s death or serious physical injury; and
• asking for or offering a financial reward in exchange for inflicting violence on a specific person or group of people.

That’s called checkmate and they cannot and will not insult their Leftist gathering spot.

 

[dblack]

Thank you for proving you are a TDS-suffering butt-hurt disinformation spreading snowflake.

Trump I'd not 'beg' anyone for anything. You altered tge article's headline to reflect your hatred for Trump.

How pathetic...

Lol - no, someone else did. My original headline was "Whiner in Chief at it again."

 

[colfax_m]

Are you going to put me on ignore again like a child?

And this is how we know that Azog knows he’s been beaten.

Thanks, kiddo.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

And this is how we know that Azog knows he’s been beaten.

Thanks, kiddo.

Beaten? We are discussing Twitter and it’s regulations. I still Believe the courts should decide. So explain to me how I am beaten? I made The mistake with Citgo. But I was right about Exxon, Mobil and Amoco. You’re such a leftist.

 

[colfax_m]

I will post this again since not a single board Dimwinger has even attempted to explain the obvious double standard..............



This is from the Twitter User Agreement. Hey Leftards, explain how the Taliban, Iranian leaders, and Hamas have not violated numerous parts of this: (I'm sure our terrorist loving members will have some sort of lameass spin)


October 2020

There is no place on Twitter for violent organizations, including terrorist organizations, violent extremist groups, or individuals who affiliate with and promote their illicit activities. The violence that these groups engage in and/or promote jeopardizes the physical safety and well-being of those targeted. Our assessments under this policy are informed by national and international terrorism designations, as well as our violent extremist group and violent organizations criteria.


You may not threaten or promote terrorism or violent extremism.

Violent extremist groups are those that meet all of the below criteria:

• identify through their stated purpose, publications, or actions as an extremist group;
• have engaged in, or currently engage in, violence and/or the promotion of violence as a means to further their cause; and
• target civilians in their acts and/or promotion of violence.

Other violent organizations

Other violent organizations are those that meet all of the below criteria:

• a collection of individuals with a shared purpose; and
• have systematically targeted civilians with violence.

We examine a group’s activities both on and off Twitter to determine whether they satisfy the above criteria.

What is in violation of this policy?​

Under this policy, you can’t state an intention to inflict violence on a specific person or group of people. We define intent to include statements like “I will”, “I’m going to”, or “I plan to”, as well as conditional statements like “If you do X, I will”. Violations of this policy include, but are not limited to:

• threatening to kill someone;
• threatening to sexually assault someone;
• threatening to seriously hurt someone and/or commit a other violent act that could lead to someone’s death or serious physical injury; and
• asking for or offering a financial reward in exchange for inflicting violence on a specific person or group of people.

Having a double standard is irrelevant to the purposes of this case. I’m not Twitter and neither is anyone else here so we have nothing to explain.

For the purposes of the thread, and the legal case that is the topic, this is completely irrelevant.

 

[colfax_m]

Beaten? We are discussing Twitter and it’s regulations. I still Believe the courts should decide. So explain to me how I am beaten? I made The mistake with Citgo. But I was right about Exxon, Mobil and Amoco. You’re such a leftist.

You admitted a mistake! He’s possibly learning. You weren’t right about Exxon, Mobil and Amoco in the context of the question. Your claim was geography had nothing to do with it. The proof is that it had much to do with it. Geography has much to do with the breakup of Bell too.

The overall point is that breaking up Twitter would be extremely difficult. A social media platform has no real identifiable means for division.

 

[Nostra]

Having a double standard is irrelevant to the purposes of this case. I’m not Twitter and neither is anyone else here so we have nothing to explain.

For the purposes of the thread, and the legal case that is the topic, this is completely irrelevant.

You are a complete moron. The double standard is the main point Trump is using in his case against Twitter.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Having a double standard is irrelevant to the purposes of this case. I’m not Twitter and neither is anyone else here so we have nothing to explain.

For the purposes of the thread, and the legal case that is the topic, this is completely irrelevant.

LOL

You do not get to decide what is and isn’t irrelevant. That is for the courts. Dumb leftist.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You admitted a mistake! He’s possibly learning. You weren’t right about Exxon, Mobil and Amoco in the context of the question. Your claim was geography had nothing to do with it. The proof is that it had much to do with it. Geography has much to do with the breakup of Bell too.

The overall point is that breaking up Twitter would be extremely difficult. A social media platform has no real identifiable means for division.

I was right. But I am not going to play this retard tennis match. If not for the break up those companies don’t exist. I am not saying that Twitter should be broken up. I am saying the Govt has broken up companies before and it may regulate Twitter how it sees fit. And not just the US Govt but Governments in other countries as well. They have final authority.

 

[colfax_m]

You are a complete moron. The double standard is the main point Trump is using in his case against Twitter.

Oh please. Are you going to try to tell me that you’ve read the lawsuit?

 

[colfax_m]

LOL

You do not get to decide what is and isn’t irrelevant. That is for the courts. Dumb leftist.

Boring.

Come back when you’ve decided to be brave and have an actual opinion.

 

[Nostra]

Having a double standard is irrelevant to the purposes of this case. I’m not Twitter and neither is anyone else here so we have nothing to explain.

For the purposes of the thread, and the legal case that is the topic, this is completely irrelevant.

I’m not Twitter and neither is anyone else here so we have nothing to explain.

And yet you and the rest of the Dimtard Clowns constantly chime in on how Trump should stay banned...................but can't bring yourselves to say Hamas et al should be banned for their obvious violations of Twitter's TOS.

You ginormous hypocrisy is on full display, Clown.

 

[colfax_m]

I was right. But I am not going to play this retard tennis match. If not for the break up those companies don’t exist. I am not saying that Twitter should be broken up. I am saying the Govt has broken up companies before and it may regulate Twitter how it sees fit. And not just the US Govt but Governments in other countries as well. They have final authority.

No, you were wrong on all counts and what facts you do claim to be correct about are completely irrelevant.

 

[colfax_m]

I’m not Twitter and neither is anyone else here so we have nothing to explain.

And yet you and the rest of the Dimtard Clowns constantly chime in on how Trump should stay banned...................but can't bring yourselves to say Hamas et al should be banned for their obvious violations of Twitter's TOS.

You ginormous hypocrisy is on full display, Clown.

Here you go.

Twitter should ban Hamas.

It’s not the issue.

 

[Nostra]

Oh please. Are you going to try to tell me that you’ve read the lawsuit?

Thanks for confirming what a complete moron you are.

'There is no better evidence that big tech is out of control than the fact that they banned the sitting President of the United States earlier this year, a ban that continues to this day,' he said.

He contrasted his position with hate speech coming from Iran and Palestinian hardliners.

'Hamas, as I said, the greatest killers in the world, have a site,' he said, saying the tweet that got him banned was innocuous.
'Get the quote, you won't believe it.

'But these people call for the destruction of Israel, the destruction of the USA, nothing happens to them.'

Trump announces class-action lawsuits against Facebook,Twitter, Google

 

[Nostra]

Here you go.

Twitter should ban Hamas.

It’s not the issue.

Finally got shamed into it.

Thanks for admitting Twitter has one standard for American Republicans, and another for America hating terrorists.

 

[dblack]

That was never in doubt.

It is always worth a chuckle seeing the liberals come out in favor of property rights and the conservatives running to government regulation as soon as twitter is mentioned. Almost like there are no actual core principals associated with their political positions....

Heh... Almost.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No, you were wrong on all counts and what facts you do claim to be correct about are completely irrelevant.

LOL now you’re boring. The courts will decide in the end and there isn’t anything you or I may do about it. I will live with their decision. What about you?

 

[Calypso Jones]

It's not freedom of speech when a company makes decisions on what is allowed on their site.

you know damn well what it is and you are revelling in it.
Xiden says 'this is not what we are'. This is exactly what y'all are.