Why does it seem like that MAGA brahs do not understand the law/constitution?

[JimFromRaleigh1]

BRB a private company follows their TOS and MAGA brahs scream “MUH 1A”

BRB Joe Biden to sign EO to make minimum wage $15/hr, but it is federal contractors only. MAGA BRahs go ‘OMG RIP SMALL BIZ”

It seems like MAGA brahs do not have an understanding of the constitution and what EOs actually impact.

WHy is this?

[Evolutionary1]

Maybe leftists should stop trying to play mind games 24/7, and be honest about what their trying to do, and instead encourage bipartisanship and unity. They would rather word things deceitfully, and encourage anxiety and tension in everyone

[chaunce54]

Because CNN lies to you and you're too dumb to figure it out.

[MiscInformed]

BRB a private company follows their TOS and MAGA brahs scream “MUH 1A”

BRB Joe Biden to sign EO to make minimum wage $15/hr, but it is federal contractors only. MAGA BRahs go ‘OMG RIP SMALL BIZ”

It seems like MAGA brahs do not have an understanding of the constitution and what EOs actually impact.

WHy is this?

Cliffs:
- private social media and internet companies CAN pick and choose who to provide their services to.
- private bakers CANNOT pick and choose who to bake cakes for.

Got it. Seems legit.

































Wish I could neg you again, *******.

[Nelly87]

Cliffs:
- private social media and internet companies CAN pick and choose who to provide their services to.
- private bakers CANNOT pick and choose who to bake cakes for.

Got it. Seems legit.

Wish I could neg you again, *******.

you can't have a rational debate with emotional beings.

[deepfat]

This message is hidden because JimFromRaleigh1 is on your ignore list.

[sandaltan]

Cliffs:
- private social media and internet companies CAN pick and choose who to provide their services to.
- private bakers CANNOT pick and choose who to bake cakes for.

Got it. Seems legit.

































Wish I could neg you again, *******.

correct, because it turns out you cant discriminate against people for being gay.

but you can totally discriminate against them for being a douchebag. or for political affiliation. thats totally fine brah. at least according to the law if you dont like it go get the law changed

[JimFromRaleigh1]

Is it because most trUMPERS are uneducated and they can’t read?

[navid93]

Cliffs:
- private social media and internet companies CAN pick and choose who to provide their services to.
- private bakers CANNOT pick and choose who to bake cakes for.

Got it. Seems legit.

































Wish I could neg you again, *******.

Sexuality is a protected class. Not a hard concept to grasp

[Stizzel]

See the links in my sig for more on liberal understanding of the law/constitution

[navid93]

There are actual psychological studies that support the idea that the less educated you are on a topic, the more confident you are about it.

[JimFromRaleigh1]

There are actual psychological studies that support the idea that the less educated you are on a topic, the more confident you are about it.

TrUMPERS to a T

[memcop]

Court says Trump cannot block people on Twitter because it is the modern public square.

So what is it?

Thats okay. We'll just do left and right media in all aspects.

I wonder which will survive? lol

[bezarker]

[sooby]

There are actual psychological studies that support the idea that the less educated you are on a topic, the more confident you are about it.

uhhhh lol .... the Dunning-Kreuger effect?

but hey if people are fine and have no problem with big-tech working with big-govt who in turn have a large influence on public discourse/thought, and can silence people for arbitrary reasons with their ToS not being adhered to consistently and uniformly that's cool.

enjoy your pseudo-govt run media monopoly

fuking lol at lefties and liberals now ironically defending big corp when they agree with you in appearance but are slowly phucking you, and everybody else with a large spiked dildo

OMFG we Wal-mart now!

[JimFromRaleigh1]

Court says Trump cannot block people on Twitter because it is the modern public square.

So what is it?

Thats okay. We'll just do left and right media in all aspects.

I wonder which will survive? lol

That is not what the court said, though.

[navid93]

Court says Trump cannot block people on Twitter because it is the modern public square.

So what is it?

Thats okay. We'll just do left and right media in all aspects.

I wonder which will survive? lol

Trump is the president and uses twitter to make official presidential statements. It makes sense that he isn’t allowed to block people from hearing presidential statements on his main communication channel.

Twitter is a private business. Twitter doesn’t have to broadcast his statements if they don’t want too.

Trump isn’t allowed to block people from hearing his presidential addresses, but cnn is allowed to refuse to show it.

[JimFromRaleigh1]

Trump is the president and uses twitter to make official presidential statements. It makes sense that he isn’t allowed to block people from hearing presidential statements on his main communication channel.

Twitter is a private business. Twitter doesn’t have to broadcast his statements if they don’t want too.

Trump isn’t allowed to block people from hearing his presidential addresses, but cnn is allowed to refuse to show it.

That is exactly what the court ruled

Trump conducts official government business on twitter

Therefore, he cannot exclude views and opinions he does not like

If the dumbass did not conduct official business on twitter, he could block who he wanted.

[navid93]

Court says Trump cannot block people on Twitter because it is the modern public square.

So what is it?

Thats okay. We'll just do left and right media in all aspects.

I wonder which will survive? lol

This is the courts full explanation

https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnb...%202018.05.pdf

The argument “public square” was never used

[sandaltan]

Court says Trump cannot block people on Twitter because it is the modern public square.

So what is it?

Thats okay. We'll just do left and right media in all aspects.

I wonder which will survive? lol

you butchered part of that hard membro

the court didnt say trump cant block people BECAUSE ITS A PUBLIC SQUARE. thats what you just made up.

the court DID say that trump cant block people because hes a public figure who conducts official business on twitter

big difference brah

big fukking difference

[chaunce54]

you butchered part of that hard membro

the court didnt say trump cant block people BECAUSE ITS A PUBLIC SQUARE. thats what you just made up.

the court DID say that trump cant block people because hes a public figure who conducts official business on twitter

big difference brah

big fukking difference

lol not really.

We can do it, but you can't...

[navid93]

you butchered part of that hard membro

the court didnt say trump cant block people BECAUSE ITS A PUBLIC SQUARE. thats what you just made up.

the court DID say that trump cant block people because hes a public figure who conducts official business on twitter

big difference brah

big fukking difference

He’s proving the OPs point of not understanding how anything works

[navid93]

lol not really.

We can do it, but you can't...

Yes it is different. The president, left or right, can not block people from accessing his main source of communication with the people. That is unconstitutional.

A private company can say, ok we don’t want you to use us as your main form of communication anymore.

[Nelly87]

Sexuality is a protected class. Not a hard concept to grasp

So is religious belief, Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Not a hard concept to grasp.

[chaunce54]

Yes it is different. The president, left or right, can not block people from accessing his main source of communication with the people. That is unconstitutional.

A private company can say, ok we don’t want you to use us as your main form of communication anymore.

No, it's not. They can still view anything he posts. They just can't comment on or rate it.

But guess when they can't?


When Twitter does it...

[Thankless]

correct, because it turns out you cant discriminate against people for being gay.

but you can totally discriminate against them for being a douchebag. or for political affiliation. thats totally fine brah. at least according to the law if you dont like it go get the law changed

The case was about not making a cake they requested for their gay wedding because it infringed on his right to exercise his religious beliefs.

[JimFromRaleigh1]

No, it's not. They can still view anything he posts. They just can't comment on or rate it.

But guess when they can't?


When Twitter does it...

You are absolutely right.

Twitter, a non-govt company, is not held to the same constitutional standards as The President of the United States.

Lol at thinking they are held to the same constitutional standards.

[memcop]

you butchered part of that hard membro

the court didnt say trump cant block people BECAUSE ITS A PUBLIC SQUARE. thats what you just made up.

the court DID say that trump cant block people because hes a public figure who conducts official business on twitter

big difference brah

big fukking difference

I'd agree if it weren't his private account. We're not talking POTUS account here are we?

There was no POTUS business on his account, he was speaking as a private citizen of which he was and had every right to be.

Help me out here?

Here we are again with liberal logic that only streams in one direction, to the benefit of the left. Seems similar to forcing religious bakers that live my a moral code to bake cakes for people that like wieners in their mouth, gay or not. You provide a public service. You dont like someones morals. Make the gay cake. But not twitter? Because why again?

[navid93]

So is religious belief, Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Not a hard concept to grasp.

Ok yeah? Gay people can’t refuse to bake a cake for a Christian either, what’s your point?

Civil rights act means you can’t be discriminated because of xyz, it doesn’t mean you yourself are allowed to discriminate because of xyz

[navid93]

I'd agree if it weren't his private account. We're not talking POTUS account here are we?

There was no POTUS business on his account, he was speaking as a private citizen of which he was and had every right to be.

Help me out here?

Yes, you’re very close and make a good point.

The argument the court made was that he was using his private account to make public announcements. It was private in name only

If trump just tweeted who he thought was going to win the super bowl or something, yes, the private argument would stand. But when you make actual presidential statements you can’t make the private argument anymore