Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Judge rules Trump violated the 1st amendment

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post

    If she uses it to discuss politics, policies or correspond with other legislators, then I'd say she's using it for business that's directly pertinent to her office.

    She has an official congressional account too, but it has a fraction of the followers of her personal account - which is why I suspect she still uses her personal account so much - it has much greater "reach", and on social media, your power is directly proportional to your number of followers.
    "If".

    If she uses her twitter account for official business, then she should be held to the same standard that Trump is supposedly now being held to (no news yet of whether or not he is complying with the court ruling and unblocking people).

    Please also remember that the White House Press Office said outright that the president's tweets should be considered official WH communications.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...statements-of/

    I am not sure if AOC has made any such statements.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post

      "If".
      No "if" - she totally does.

      Do you follow her? If so, then you should know she does... and if you don't, then the article I previously linked to regarding her being sued provides plenty of examples where she has done so.

      If she uses her twitter account for official business, then she should be held to the same standard that Trump is supposedly now being held to (no news yet of whether or not he is complying with the court ruling and unblocking people).
      I agree.

      Please also remember that the White House Press Office said outright that the president's tweets should be considered official WH communications.

      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...statements-of/

      I am not sure if AOC has made any such statements.
      Again, IMHO it doesn't matter. If she's using a social media account to communicate with other legislators, talk about policies, potential legislation or anything pertinent to her office, then IMHO she's using it for political reasons, if not actual official business, whether she claims she is doing so or not.

      She's got a congressional account, but she apparently doesn't use it nearly as much - as I said previously, I suspect that's because it has fewer than 200k subscribers vs. over 4 million on her personal account. It's all about reach and influence!


      **********

      "Look at it this way: think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of 'em are stupider than that."
      - George Carlin

      "It shouldn't be expected that people are necessarily doing what they appear to be doing on records."
      - Sir George Martin, All You Need Is Ears

      "The music business will be revitalized by musicians, not the labels or Live Nation. When the musicians decide to put music first, instead of money, the public will flock to the fruits and the scene will be healthy again."
      - Bob Lefsetz, The Lefsetz Letter

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post

        No "if" - she totally does.

        Do you follow her?
        I'm not on Twitter. At all.

        Comment


        • #79
          I would guess that most members of Congress use a twitter account for campaign purposes. Does that mean those accounts are used as part of their legislative duties? I doubt it. Trump's use of Twitter is unique as far as I can tell. For example, when he announced his transgender ban for the military, the channel through which it was communicated both inside and outside the government was Twitter. Or so the military claims.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

            You made a statement regarding a concrete fact--something that did not come from your head; it did not originate with your reasoning, your inferring, your values, your imagination, etc. etc. Instead, it's something completely outside of your head; it's a matter of fact that can be either verified or disproven. Hence, you did not make a statement of opinion. This is what we learned in grade school with those opinion-vs-fact tables.
            Again, he said "I understand that AOC... has blocked users." That's an admission that it's his understanding of things; he's not claiming it as an indisputable fact.

            **********

            "Look at it this way: think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of 'em are stupider than that."
            - George Carlin

            "It shouldn't be expected that people are necessarily doing what they appear to be doing on records."
            - Sir George Martin, All You Need Is Ears

            "The music business will be revitalized by musicians, not the labels or Live Nation. When the musicians decide to put music first, instead of money, the public will flock to the fruits and the scene will be healthy again."
            - Bob Lefsetz, The Lefsetz Letter

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Zooey View Post
              I would guess that most members of Congress use a twitter account for campaign purposes. Does that mean those accounts are used as part of their legislative duties? I doubt it. Trump's use of Twitter is unique as far as I can tell. For example, when he announced his transgender ban for the military, the channel through which it was communicated both inside and outside the government was Twitter. Or so the military claims.
              Ooh. That is an added wrinkle.

              So politicians may need to create multiple accounts. A personal account, a campaign account, and an official office account. Each with different rules of engagement.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post

                Does she use her account for official business?
                You bet your sweet rear end she does, and now she has to stand up to the critics....of which there are MANY!!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post

                  Ooh. That is an added wrinkle.

                  So politicians may need to create multiple accounts. A personal account, a campaign account, and an official office account. Each with different rules of engagement.
                  That's the way it is. If she wants to use her personal account to discuss politics it becomes an open forum. She cannot, nor can anyone-- thanks to liberals crying about Trump---, block opposing viewpoints or criticism.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Uncle Figgy View Post

                    That's the way it is. If she wants to use her personal account to discuss politics it becomes an open forum. She cannot, nor can anyone-- thanks to liberals crying about Trump---, block opposing viewpoints or criticism.
                    No it isn't. At least until the Trump case is resolved.

                    Donald Trump uses his personal account to conduct official business. And he has blocked users, silencing his critics.

                    Trump has not yet, as far as I know, unblocked anyone - despite the appeals court ruling.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post

                      Again, he said "I understand that AOC... has blocked users." That's an admission that it's his understanding of things; he's not claiming it as an indisputable fact.
                      Ok...... In my understanding (hehe), to say "it is my understanding that gravity makes things float away from the ground" is not a statement of opinion; it's a statement of incorrect fact. It does not come from one's own evaluation or imagination. Instead, it's a statement of fact by someone who is ignorant of the actual fact.

                      BUT! My understanding of "opinion" could be wrong, or it could be different from how you understand and apply the word in moderation here. (Language, so it seems to me, is always slippery to some degree. The biggest case on my mind these days is how Bill Barr was asked "did any members of Muller's team complain about your initial statement of the Special Counsel's findings?" Even though Mueller himself had indeed complained, Barr answered "no" and later argued that Mueller himself was not a "member" of the team. Even though we would probably think of "member" as being a very commonly, easily understood word, different people will see it differently in that situation. Some look at the situation and think the leader is a member of a team; others will say the leader is not a member. Language is slippery.)

                      And I suppose when I look at Websters, you could argue that your use of "opinion" matches definition #2, while I was stuck thinking that it had to be #1:

                      opinion
                      1a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
                      "We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium."
                      b: APPROVAL, ESTEEM "I have no great opinion of his work."
                      2a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge "a person of rigid opinions"
                      b: a generally held view "news programs that shape public opinion"
                      3a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert "My doctor says that I need an operation, but I'm going to get a second opinion."
                      b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based "The article discusses the recent Supreme Court opinion."
                      Last edited by arcadesonfire; 07-11-2019, 12:07 PM.
                      For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                      https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                      My (old dead) band!:
                      www.steelphantoms.com/
                      PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post

                        https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc...uling-on-trump

                        She's currently being sued for that... it's current news.
                        I saw a similar article this morning on a different news outlet, so it's current news today. I'm not sure if it was when he asked for the link.

                        And WRT "understand" as a synonym for "opinion", I'm not sure if you're on solid ground. If I state publicly "Joe Blow fornicates with swine", it would clearly be slander (or libel, I can never remember which is which). If instead I state "I understand Joe Blow fornicates with swine", I doubt the court would let me off on that technicality.

                        In my opinion.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post

                          Again, he said "I understand that AOC... has blocked users." That's an admission that it's his understanding of things; he's not claiming it as an indisputable fact.
                          If he understands it, then he is accepting it as fact. So how is that any different than claiming it is a fact?

                          any fact we assert here is subject to revision as new details come forth. But if I say “I understand that Phil is bald”, I’m saying this is something that I believe to be true.

                          Otherwise, why would I bother to tell anyone that I “understand” it?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Vito Corleone View Post

                            If he understands it, then he is accepting it as fact. So how is that any different than claiming it is a fact?

                            If he says "my understanding is..." he's saying that's what he thinks is true, but that's different that categorically stating something is true - full stop.


                            But if I say “I understand that Phil is bald”, I’m saying this is something that I believe to be true.
                            Again, that you BELIEVE to be true. That does not make it a fact, just because you believe it to be so.

                            How do you know I haven't decided to grow my hair out, or go to Bosley or something?

                            **********

                            "Look at it this way: think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of 'em are stupider than that."
                            - George Carlin

                            "It shouldn't be expected that people are necessarily doing what they appear to be doing on records."
                            - Sir George Martin, All You Need Is Ears

                            "The music business will be revitalized by musicians, not the labels or Live Nation. When the musicians decide to put music first, instead of money, the public will flock to the fruits and the scene will be healthy again."
                            - Bob Lefsetz, The Lefsetz Letter

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post


                              If he says "my understanding is..." he's saying that's what he thinks is true, but that's different that categorically stating something is true - full stop.




                              Again, that you BELIEVE to be true. That does not make it a fact, just because you believe it to be so.

                              How do you know I haven't decided to grow my hair out, or go to Bosley or something?
                              Exactly. But that’s the same with anything anyone states here. Anything that anyone requests to see a link is only stated as an understanding. I read something somewhere. Whether I say “Trump’s approval rating is 46%” or “I understand Trump’s approval rating is 46%”, there’s no difference. If I understand it, I must having gotten that information from somewhere. And if I’m repeating it here, I must believe it at least to the degree that I trusted the source.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Vito Corleone View Post

                                Exactly. But that’s the same with anything anyone states here. Anything that anyone requests to see a link is only stated as an understanding. I read something somewhere. Whether I say “Trump’s approval rating is 46%” or “I understand Trump’s approval rating is 46%”, there’s no difference. If I understand it, I must having gotten that information from somewhere. And if I’m repeating it here, I must believe it at least to the degree that I trusted the source.
                                OMG you argue just to argue. You need to get a part time job or something to occupy your time.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X