(12-05-2022, 01:21 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(12-05-2022, 11:51 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: You’re intentionally muddying the waters to avoid the main point, but I don’t blame you.

Btw, any polls showing voters would not have voted for Trump had they known about these little stories of his children that the left failed to make an issue of?

Did anyone in the government threaten anyone in the media for publishing or promoting the Hunter's laptop story?  It's given that old Twitter moved to suppress that story, but it's also given that old Twitter had a legal right to suppress any story they wished to suppress.  Did anyone coerce old Twitter to do this?  Unless you can answer that question affirmatively this whole dustup is over nothing.  

And in any case, Trump’s people were in charge of government at that time.  So if government deprived Twitter or Twitter users of their 1st amendment rights at any point in 2020, that's Trump's fault, not Biden's.

(12-05-2022, 01:29 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(12-05-2022, 01:21 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: Muddying to intentional misrepresentation, Mike does it all!

Oh, wait, let me get this in before he does:

“Insurrection! Insurrection!”

That should do it.

 You're right, I'm misinterpreting you.
 You didn't compare Biden having a son on the payroll of foreign corporations to Trump trying to suspend the Constitution. I got that wrong and I'm sorry.
 You compared Bernie keeping quiet, while private corporations declined to publish or promote a negative story about Biden, to Trump wanting to suspend the Constitution.

Suspending the constitution is bad, but failing to comment on the outrage of the day is really just as bad, guys.

This conversation is bifurcating. Sorry, Marty, I derailed your thread.

My point is that collusion exists between the White House, the Democrat party, the MSM, and social media. It is real and unquestionable. While Trump wanting to suspend the Constitution is illegal, unethical and downright looney, we can confidently draw a parallel between that and the unconstitutionality of the suppression of the free speech by private publishers at the behest of government and party officials.

So, let me ask this question. If a baker is successfully sued for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couple, why isn't that same standard applied to publishers who refuse to publish one side of ideological speech?

---