(11-11-2023, 10:34 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(11-10-2023, 06:06 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: First of all, I didn't realize you posted between me and Mikey. So, that wasn't a response to you, it was a response to him. Normally I check to make sure my post followed the one that preceded it, so I can go back and quote the other poster, but I guess I didn't check this time. My bad. Let me go back and address your post.

Before we begin, I would like you to link me the DHS mandate to which you are referring. Specifically, if you can, the order that outlines what the mandate entails.

It is the entire topic of the thread. 
The one Jim Jordan is whining about in the article from the original post.  
You want me to research it for you?  
LOL
no

---

(11-10-2023, 08:01 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/132...09441?s=20

Here's the tweet. It was definitely not true. Like most things Trump, his post was hyperbolic and, therefore, inaccurate. However, my point is that it was done without his knowledge coming from his own agencies, which is why I referenced it. His agencies definitely did things without his knowledge.

... which speaks volumes to his ineptitude.

Huh. Shouldn't take you that long, right? I mean, you were just HAHAHAing about it 2 posts ago. Provide me the information in the DHS mandate from Trump that you were referring to, please. I bet you can't. 

As to ineptitude, assuming you are referencing his agencies and not his hyperbole, are you even remotely aware the size and scope of government. It would be impossible for any President to be fully aware of everything that's happening in his departments. Period. Biden didn't do it. Obama didn't do it. Nobody can do it. These agencies are huge. 

I am 20 pages into the disinformation report that I'm sure you haven't read. I put that down for a bit to read more on the EIP. This was NOT approved by Trump, but administration attorneys. That means that the general counsel of the DHS or CISA signed off on this partnership. I can't even find out the specific people who approved it, because that information is not released. Those attorneys are not appointed by Trump, but by the director of DHS or CISA. You can confirm this by visiting the EIP site and reading about it if you want, but I gave you the relevant info. I'm not even convinced they've done anything wrong at this point (other than their own bias, which always exists in spades at universities), but I still have 80 pages to go, so that could change. 

The CISA was a congressional act to protect against cybersecurity threats in 2018. Read this [BLEEP]:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-cong.../3359/text

Seriously, if you can make it through a page of that without getting frustrated, I'll buy you a beer. You think Trump is reading that? You think our congress is reading that? You think that was written for the people? Well, been sludging through that, too. No where in there is this department commissioned to protect against misinformation or disinformation. The DHS, at least under the Trump administration, had no authority to regulate domestic misinformation or disinformation. 

So, just so were clear, a department that wasn't assigned to safeguard against misinformation and disinformation, formed a partnership with a private agency of its own volition. It wasn't approved by congress. It didn't go through Trump. It then coordinated with EIP to verify information and send that to social media companies to flagged as misinformation or disinformation. Not only that, but students from Stanford also worked at both CISA and the EIP simultaneously. According to the report, this resulted in a disproportionate disparity between political ideology, where satire and true information was regularly flagged.

---

(11-11-2023, 08:47 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(11-10-2023, 11:46 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: OK, let's try this again. Trump was clearly frustrated being censored by Twitter, right? So, he made an EO that he thought would curb their censoring of him. He sued them. He constantly spoke about it in public. IF Trump knew that the DHS was the one flagging his tweets, do you think he would have stopped it? Yes or no?

I think he would have made another angry tweet about it, and he would have been unable to give a clear, lawful order regarding the behavior. So he would have tried, and failed, to stop it.

I agree with you. But he didn't, did he. Meaning what, most likely?

---