(11-12-2023, 04:32 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Nice post, laughing boy. When you gonna answer my question? You laugh at me for not knowing about the "DHS mandate," that you can't even prove existed. You just gonna let that slide?

Your whole stick is confidently asserting yourself. Your position is "unscathed" in your head because you can't acknowledge your own limitations of knowledge. Even your bulleted examples are made up. There are verifiably true tweets that were taken down. Satire was taken down. Trump didn't know about it (most likely). His department heads say they didn't know about it. You just have a world view you believe is 100% true, and your incapable of removing yourself from your dogmatism. You can't prove a single one of your points. Not one. It's why you lol so much.

It's ONLY because this falls on your side of the political spectrum that you don't see a problem with it. That's your bias issue. Not mine.

What? 
I don't need to prove anything existed. It's obvious. 

The DHS didn't just go about forming a censorship panel at Stanford University out of thin air. 
Someone instructed (ordered? mandated?) them to do that. 

How is that you think that the DHS suddenly got involved in social media factchecking? 

I assume that you getting hung up on this irrelevant detail here is one of your typical deflections. 
I'm not interested in whatever it is you are selling down at the flea market on Deflection Street. 

My actual point:
The DHS were set onto the project (mandated in some way - doesn't matter how)  - and it happened under Trump - so he was either ignorant of it or inept in controlling it. Both of which are damning. Take your pick. 

The other point I've made is that the project was justified even if not properly handled and executed in every facet. 

So yeah - that part remains unscathed. 
Sorry, I just got a chuckle out of all that stuff you dug up to try to defend Trump's ignorance of his own government agency censoring his lies. It's just funny to me. I apologize.

---