https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/...MadkA&s=19

People are jailed before they get a trial all the time.  That's the way the system works.  They throw you in jail, they set bail, and later, you get put on trial.  Mandatory vaccination of soldiers has been going on for a very long time.  

Do you agree with Trump that we should suspend the Constitution so he can be (somehow) installed as President?

---

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/...MadkA&s=19

People are jailed before they get a trial all the time.  That's the way the system works.  They throw you in jail, they set bail, and later, you get put on trial.  Mandatory vaccination of soldiers has been going on for a very long time.  

Do you agree with Trump that we should suspend the Constitution so he can be (somehow) installed as President?

Personally, I don't know what I agree with now.. I do know this much, they need to drag that whole Biden family tree into court and prosecute, and they need to start with Adam Schiff..

---

The main point being the topic of this thread and the first post.  The leading Republican candidate has suggested suspending the Constitution so he can be declared President.

I think HB hit on the main point.  He says suspending the constitution is bad, but having a son on the payroll of multiple foreign corporations is just as bad.
That's his sincere opinion.
God help us all.

Muddying to intentional misrepresentation, Mike does it all!

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

“Insurrection! Insurrection!”

That should do it.

---

Silence is not the right word.  Everyone heard about Hunter's laptop.  Just like everyone heard about Junior's Russian loans and Jared's and Chelsea's Qatari hedge funds. 
Historically, voters have a very strong distaste for dragging a candidate down with stories about their kids.  Even though there is definitely merit to all of these stories, influence is definitely bought and sold through children, voters typically don't want to hear about it.  And I don't think that's changed.

---

Each of those policies she listed can change by nominating candidates that can win elections.

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think HB hit on the main point.  He says suspending the constitution is bad, but having a son on the payroll of multiple foreign corporations is just as bad.
That's his sincere opinion.
God help us all.

Muddying to intentional misrepresentation, Mike does it all!

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

“Insurrection! Insurrection!”

That should do it.

The Hunter Biden cover up is the real insurrection..

---

I think HB hit on the main point.  He says suspending the constitution is bad, but having a son on the payroll of multiple foreign corporations is just as bad.
That's his sincere opinion.
God help us all.

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Muddying to intentional misrepresentation, Mike does it all!

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

“Insurrection! Insurrection!”

That should do it.

The Hunter Biden cover up is the real insurrection..

What did Hunter Biden do that Kushner or Trump Jr didn't also do?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

People are jailed before they get a trial all the time.  That's the way the system works.  They throw you in jail, they set bail, and later, you get put on trial.  Mandatory vaccination of soldiers has been going on for a very long time.  

Do you agree with Trump that we should suspend the Constitution so he can be (somehow) installed as President?

Personally, I don't know what I agree with now.. I do know this much, they need to drag that whole Biden family tree into court and prosecute, and they need to start with Adam Schiff..

I asked you if you thought we should suspend the Constitution so we can install Trump as President, and your answer was you don't know?

---

Personally, I don't know what I agree with now.. I do know this much, they need to drag that whole Biden family tree into court and prosecute, and they need to start with Adam Schiff..

I asked you if you thought we should suspend the Constitution so we can install Trump as President, and your answer was you don't know?

No, I don't know..

---

Like we're supposed to take some moral high road after the dems have figuratively been wiping their [BLEEP] with The Constitution for the last handful of years hahaha.. yeah, they can piss off.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

 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?

I don't think that baker should have faced any legal jeopardy, but, the Colorado law that was enforced against him made it illegal for certain private businesses to discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.  That Colorado law did not make it illegal to discriminate based on political viewpoint.  If you want publishers to have to carry "both sides" of a given debate, that sounds a lot like the "fairness doctrine."  Or am I misunderstanding something?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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?

I don't think that baker should have faced any legal jeopardy, but, the Colorado law that was enforced against him made it illegal for certain private businesses to discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.  That Colorado law did not make it illegal to discriminate based on political viewpoint.  If you want publishers to have to carry "both sides" of a given debate, that sounds a lot like the "fairness doctrine."  Or am I misunderstanding something?

It seems to me that forcing publishers to carry both sides of a political debate would violate the First Amendment.  Publishers have a First Amendment right to publish what they want.  The Catholic Times should not be forced to publish an article promoting atheism, for example.

---

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?

I don't think that baker should have faced any legal jeopardy, but, the Colorado law that was enforced against him made it illegal for certain private businesses to discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.  That Colorado law did not make it illegal to discriminate based on political viewpoint.  If you want publishers to have to carry "both sides" of a given debate, that sounds a lot like the "fairness doctrine."  Or am I misunderstanding something?

The fairness doctrine argument holds true to a point. The baker stated upfront what he would and would not do. There was no collusion with government officials and others to suppress the couple’s rights. 

On the other hand, publishers are censoring views that may not agree with their own, but are also doing it at the request of political and government entities to not only shape public opinion, but to also influence elections by hiding pertinent facts. 

The baker analogy was probably not the best to use.

---

I don't think that baker should have faced any legal jeopardy, but, the Colorado law that was enforced against him made it illegal for certain private businesses to discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.  That Colorado law did not make it illegal to discriminate based on political viewpoint.  If you want publishers to have to carry "both sides" of a given debate, that sounds a lot like the "fairness doctrine."  Or am I misunderstanding something?

It seems to me that forcing publishers to carry both sides of a political debate would violate the First Amendment.  Publishers have a First Amendment right to publish what they want.  The Catholic Times should not be forced to publish an article promoting atheism, for example.

Agreed. However, the Catholic times is not an open forum like Twitter. Twitter invites people to use their platform to publish their views, then actively suppresses the ones which not only violate their beliefs (which seems a little disingenuous if you’re hosting a public forum), but also at the request of other entities to give political (thus, legal) leverage.

---

"Hey everyone. We stole the election through manipulation and fraud. Now we'll hide behind the constitution (a document we really don't care about unless it's convenient) to say you can't challenge any of it. Sorry pals, better luck next time." -Every democrat and easily duped sap in the US.

TDS is real, ya'll.

---

"Hey everyone. We stole the election through manipulation and fraud. Now we'll hide behind the constitution (a document we really don't care about unless it's convenient) to say you can't challenge any of it. Sorry pals, better luck next time." -Every democrat and easily duped sap in the US.

TDS is real, ya'll.

Do you think we should suspend the Constitution so Trump can be installed as President?

---

I think you should stop focusing on the people with no establishment power and start focusing on the ones that do.

---

It seems to me that forcing publishers to carry both sides of a political debate would violate the First Amendment.  Publishers have a First Amendment right to publish what they want.  The Catholic Times should not be forced to publish an article promoting atheism, for example.

Agreed. However, the Catholic times is not an open forum like Twitter. Twitter invites people to use their platform to publish their views, then actively suppresses the ones which not only violate their beliefs (which seems a little disingenuous if you’re hosting a public forum), but also at the request of other entities to give political (thus, legal) leverage.

Reprehensible as it is, Twitter's suppression of tweets they didn't like is not a violation of the Constitution.  The First Amendment says, "The government shall make no law..."  Twitter is not the government, so it seems to me that they have a right to publish or not publish what they want.

---

I think you should stop focusing on the people with no establishment power and start focusing on the ones that do.

It was a simple question.

---

Agreed. However, the Catholic times is not an open forum like Twitter. Twitter invites people to use their platform to publish their views, then actively suppresses the ones which not only violate their beliefs (which seems a little disingenuous if you’re hosting a public forum), but also at the request of other entities to give political (thus, legal) leverage.

Reprehensible as it is, Twitter's suppression of tweets they didn't like is not a violation of the Constitution.  The First Amendment says, "The government shall make no law..."  Twitter is not the government, so it seems to me that they have a right to publish or not publish what they want.

---

I think you should stop focusing on the people with no establishment power and start focusing on the ones that do.

It was a simple question.

But what if government is using that platform to actively suppress speech?

---

Agreed. However, the Catholic times is not an open forum like Twitter. Twitter invites people to use their platform to publish their views, then actively suppresses the ones which not only violate their beliefs (which seems a little disingenuous if you’re hosting a public forum), but also at the request of other entities to give political (thus, legal) leverage.

Reprehensible as it is, Twitter's suppression of tweets they didn't like is not a violation of the Constitution.  The First Amendment says, "The government shall make no law..."  Twitter is not the government, so it seems to me that they have a right to publish or not publish what they want.

---

I think you should stop focusing on the people with no establishment power and start focusing on the ones that do.

It was a simple question.

It's a simple answer. You care more about Trump than the intentional manipulation of the public by people with real power. Trump's only power is his words. Get over your stupid [BLEEP] obsession with the guy and start getting mad about real abuse of our system. 

Biden is a puppet. The dude doesn't even know where he is half the time. He's not running America. The same people pulling his strings are the ones intentionally manipulating the news we digest. They cover up for real charlatans. They actually abuse their power for their own gains, and it's actually hurting common Americans. EVERYTHING they said would happen under Trump has actually happened under the Biden administration, short of nuclear war. 

Then, when their deviant acts come to light, you focus on a narcissistic loudmouth and direct all of your discontentment in his direction. NOT at the people who are stealing your money and power. Grow up. Trump has ZERO institutional power. None.

---