Soldato
He was impeached twice, ie - charges brought against him, but he was acquitted both times by the Senate.
Edit - To add, the Senate voted "not guilty".
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
He was impeached twice, ie - charges brought against him, but he was acquitted both times by the Senate.
Edit - To add, the Senate voted "not guilty".
Man of Honour
That's a really fantastic argument. Keep using it please
Soldato
As bad as you may think that is, what about Biden constantly inciting racial hatred which leads to violence (BLM riots anyone?).. Calling Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist??
When the senate hearing was on regarding Trumps call to violence did you see the montage of all the Democrats with all their own calls to violence?? It was a pitiful show all around.
There there was the 'stolen election' aspect to Trump, and it took all of 5 seconds for all the clips of Democrats saying effectively how the election was effectively rigged when Trump first got in..
Or how about Hilaries 'russia gate' nonsense?
I don't agree with either side, I find the entire US political seen worse than our own (which is not a good position to be in)..
I see the moment the twitter deal is announced Biden suddenly cares about Social Media and wants to look at anti-trust laws.. you literally couldn't make this up as a movie plot..
radio article suggested PRC could now retaliate against tesla for any anti-government material it's populus maybe illegally watching, contributing to - all's fair ...
I hadn't appreciated that Diane Abbot is actually an abuser on twitter, do all MP's do this ( had been looking for excerpts of the piers/trump interview )
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1518862566189109248/photo/1
( https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1518468201184702465 )
I hadn't appreciated that Diane Abbot is actually an abuser on twitter, do all MP's do this ( had been looking for excerpts of the piers/trump interview )
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1518862566189109248/photo/1
( https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1518468201184702465 )
Soldato
None taken, you literally asked the question. You're insulting the rephrased same question that you asked.I have no clue tbh. my life isn't about another country lol. You remind me of talking to my uncle Pat, he comes out with the same speel as you do...no offence
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
I have no clue tbh. my life isn't about another country lol. You remind me of talking to my uncle Pat, he comes out with the same speel as you do...no offence
Is he a postman?
Soldato
Been repeated many times, it's a private company so they can ban who they like AFAIK. You don't have a right to use that free to use service if they don't want you to. Please correct me if I am mistaken
Move all your operations to the Principality of Sealand Elon
That's just factually incorrect - he was acquitted twice:
He was impeached, the articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate and in the trials, they didn't convict him.
It's like saying someone who was charged by a grand jury and then found not guilty in court was actually proven guilty simply because they were charged...
Soldato
No, its like saying he was impeached, and then it was given to his very own team to decide whether he should be punished for it or let off. His friends voted to not proceed any further.
And then quacks either ignorantly or purposefully, use this as proof nothing happened.
But any way, this is a twitter/Elon thread.
Personally I think there will be many disappointed people from both sides going forward, now that Elon has bought it.
You'll have those who expect you to now have ultimate free speech, anything goes on twitter. They will push the boundaries further and further, as after all, Trump could incite an insurrection and get away with it, why can't I call x person an x as twitter is free speech.
There will still be a boundary, and that will annoy those expecting to have freedom to say anything.
Then you will have those who use the site that expect to not have death threats, not see an extreme right wing take over, and not like the site so leave.
Twitter was totally nameless before.
Facebook = the zuck
Ms some what Bill Gates, or at least for a time.
Twitter was no one but it's now twitter = Elon. An issue with twitter and you blame Elon and anything involved with him.
Does he really want to be the guy that's responsible for his private company issuing death threats? Now having to remove those users? What about vaccine misinformation? Does he want news articles about now he's "freed" twitter, its just a cesspit of false vaccine information. Which educated person would want to use that site and support it?
Honesty, I don't see the win, other than 1 thing, which is Elon can never be banned from the site. Which he may have had while just being a share holder.
Does Elon want to go in front of MP like the zuck did?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,490
Yeah it's not the same at all as a grand jury trial.
Basically people who rely on being loyal to him to keep their voters happy, found him not guilty.
Basically people who rely on being loyal to him to keep their voters happy, found him not guilty.
You can say the same about those that hate Trump and voted guilty.
Soldato
So what does it say about the Democrats and Bill Clinton?
All these people scared of free speech. That is the problem.
Last edited:
I didn't say it was the same as a grand jury, I'm pointing out that the other poster is factually incorrect - the trial takes place in the Senate, the impeachment is the first stage, akin to a grand jury voting deciding to charge someone.
To claim he was found guilty is simply wrong, he was acquitted twice.
As for posters like Apex pointing out it was political... I mean yes, of course it is, it always is.
He was impeached, you don't seem to understand what an anlogy is.
Soldato
Any way, this is a twitter/Elon thread.
That's just factually incorrect - he was acquitted twice:
He was impeached, the articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate and in the trials, they didn't convict him.
It's like saying someone who was charged by a grand jury and then found not guilty in court was actually proven guilty simply because they were charged...
That isn't how it works. In that basis, Clinton didn't lie under oaf because the senate aquited. The senate vote doesn't overturn the house impeachment and isn't there to define guilt but repurcusions.
Truml incited violience and was Impeached, Clinton lied under oath about sexual relationships and was impeached, and in both cases the senate didn't secure votes for indictment due to political reasons.
The senate vote was never about establishing guilt.
That's a really fantastic argument. Keep using it please
you don't seem to care about an informed an electorate and explicitly stated you want disinformation, even if that is foreign, to be allowed on social media to impact democratic processes.
no, the senate did not vote "not guilty" The senate didn't secure a significant enough majority to apply repurcusions for Trump's actions. For example, when Trump was first Impeached for blackmailing Ukraine and witheld military aid, the senate all agreed Trump was guilty but the Republicans simply stated that Trump learned his lessons so did not require removal from office. Much the same as Clinton was avquited by the senate, not because Clinton didn't lie unde oath, but the political vote of the senate declared that lying wasn't important enough to remove from office.
And besides, non of the political processes are the only means of establishing that Trump incited Violience. Most experts agreed that Trump incited Violience and insurrection, and that is ehy he was banned. Twitter's descision had nothing to do with impeached but the advice of independent exerts
- Status