forbes Elon Musk Says Twitter Deal ‘Cannot Move Forward’ Until CEO Proves Fake Account Numbers

[UltraMega]

  On 19/05/2022 at 22:15, Storm-Chaser said:

Mean's he's pretty damn effective at his job, for starters. The guy designs rocket engines for crying out load. You know, the expression, "it's not rocket science", Elon actually does that in real life. I would say he is a very successful businessman, wouldn't you say? 

 

His cars can do low 9s in the 1/4mile when tuned and gutted. That's beating out engines with twice as much horsepower with ease. 

 

Never before have people railed against him like this. And lets not forget the point here : freedom of speech must be upheld at all costs. You can see this as a perfect example, they are trying every tactic available to stop the twitter deal from going through. 

 

I predict in a week or so they will come up with enough ideas to halt the sale. So Musk wont get the platform, which is too bad. 

 

 

Expand  

This is the exact same point you made already. Being a successful business man does not grant you special rights nor does it entitle someone to more control over society than someone else. 

 

  On 19/05/2022 at 22:07, Avacado said:

Lets keep this off Musks politics, it always has a way of, um, heightening emotions. 

Expand  

No one is debating his politics. I simply pointed out that he does have a side and that seems to align with his monetary goals. No one is debating his actual political stance at all. 

[Storm-Chaser]

  On 19/05/2022 at 21:20, UltraMega said:

Again, it's only about ensuring no legal consequences.

Expand  

I know it says we the people there somewhere as well. 

 

But expand on this, what do you mean by legal consequences?

 

And what are some things that Trump has been dishonest about?

[Avacado]

  On 19/05/2022 at 22:19, UltraMega said:

No one is debating his politics. I simply pointed out that he does have a side and that seems to align with his monetary goals. No one is debating his actual political stance at all. 

Expand  

Word. I'll leave you both to it then. 

[Storm-Chaser]

  On 19/05/2022 at 22:16, UltraMega said:

I think the only next logic step in your debate would be to argue that the lies are actually true and therefore twitter got it wrong. Clearly you think the lies are true, but all real evidence says otherwise. You don't have to agree with twitter, but unless you can make a fact-based argument for why the lies are actually true that is going to counter the plethora of facts saying otherwise that countless people have already looked into deeply, then I don't think your argument has anywhere to go except in circles. 

Expand  

What real evidence says otherwise?

[Storm-Chaser]

  On 19/05/2022 at 22:19, UltraMega said:

This is the exact same point you made already. Being a successful business man does not grant you special rights nor does it entitle someone to more control over society than someone else. 

Expand  

He didnt ask to be important, or in control he poured his heart out in a last stich effort to save the nation.

 

ill be back later.

[UltraMega]

  On 19/05/2022 at 22:17, Storm-Chaser said:

Neither. They should both be treated equal. 

Expand  

And infact they are. If you want to go tell people that Musk poops his pants, no one is going to stop you... unless you do it with the intent to harm his business and then, unless it were true, Musk could claim defamation. 

 

Twitter exercising their own first amendment rights and choosing not to spread misinformation on their platform does not stop people from saying whatever they want. It just stops them from tweeting about it. Believe it or not, there are other forms of communication out there besides twitter. 

 

  On 19/05/2022 at 22:19, Storm-Chaser said:

I know it says we the people there somewhere as well. 

 

But expand on this, what do you mean by legal consequences?

Expand  

I mean what the first amendment says: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

I think it's clear enough on your own but if you want me to explain the first amendment to you, Wikipedia is probably better for that. 

 

  On 19/05/2022 at 22:23, Storm-Chaser said:

And what are some things that Trump has been dishonest about?

 

What real evidence says otherwise?

Expand  

Rather than debate reality with you, since it will almost certainly devolve into a political debate even though reality is not subjective... I'll just post some links. 

 

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump - Wikipedia

 

Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

 

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump - Wikipedia

 

US election 2020: Fact-checking Trump team's main fraud claims - BBC News

 

Senate Report on Russian Interference Suggests Trump Lied to Mueller - Rolling Stone

 

How Many Times Has Trump Lied - TrumpReporter.net

 

If you want to continue this debate, I think you should address this specifically: 

Putin told his people that there are Nazis in Ukraine that are coming to kill them and that's why he had to invade. If Putin were saying this on twitter, would you argue twitter has no right to block that?

Edited May 19, 2022 by UltraMega

[UltraMega]

  On 19/05/2022 at 22:24, Storm-Chaser said:

He didnt ask to be important, or in control he poured his heart out in a last stich effort to save the nation.

 

ill be back later.

Expand  

Again, meaningless opinion that does nothing to further the debate. I don't agree at all that Musk "poured his heart" into a last stich effort to save the nation at all, but I don't want to debate purely subjective opinions either. 

 

Musk is not a rocket scientist, he's a CEO. He's a smart guy, sure, but he's not doing the rocket science. He hired engineers who do that. If anything, I credit him with getting rich enough to start making successful engineering teams. He seems to be good at hiring the right people. Musk got rich from real estate and paypal, not rockets. 

 

On a side note, while looking stuff up about Musk I learned that his father impregnated his stepdaughter and he lied about it until DNA proved otherwise. Just thought that was an interesting fact. I also didn't know that Musk describes him father as "a terrible human being". I know we all like to think we're not like our parents... but 

Edited May 19, 2022 by UltraMega

[Storm-Chaser]

  On 19/05/2022 at 22:35, UltraMega said:

Rather than debate reality with you, since it will almost certainly devolve into a political debate even though reality is not subjective... I'll just post some links. 

Expand  

Lets just do one tangible scenario, then we can drop it. In other words, put for a single "dishonest" thing Trump has done and we can talk about it. 

 

You do realize that you morally judging Trump, right? 

 

You are just eating up the "establishment" spin. wash and rinse cycle is approprite. 

 

You shouldnt let other people dictate the truth for you. Always question it. 

 

Edit: did not mean to edit, clicked wrong button. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by UltraMega

[UltraMega]

  On 19/05/2022 at 23:25, Storm-Chaser said:

Lets just do one tangible scenario, then we can drop it. In other words, put for a single "dishonest" thing Trump has done and we can talk about it. 

 

You do realize that you morally judging Trump, right? 

 

You are just eating up the "establishment" spin. wash and rinse cycle is approprite. 

 

You shouldnt let other people dictate the truth for you. Always question it. 

 

Expand  

It's hard to take someone who takes a mountain of evidence against something and sticks with the one person who keep saying the same lie over and over. You have a ton of evidence to look over, you ignore all of it and circled back to claiming it's not a lie. I don't want to debate that with you because you are clearly hopelessly far from accepting reality and labeling everything you don't want to accept as "establishment spin" which is a totally meaningless thing to say in a debate since I could claim the exact same thing about your side of the argument as well. Not only that, but I don't want to have a political debate. I'm happy to debate the merits of twitter exercising their free speech rights but I don't want to try to convince you that Trump is a liar. If you don't see that by now, likely you never will. You could walk in on him banging your wife and still belief him when he said he didn't do it at the rate you're going. 

 

My opinion is just based on verifiable facts plus some common sense.  

 

 

Actually though, I guess I can think of an example that isn't political if you need one. He lied about having sex with those porn stars up until he couldn't deny it anymore. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by UltraMega

[Storm-Chaser]

  On 19/05/2022 at 23:41, UltraMega said:

He lied about having sex with those porn stars up until he couldn't deny it anymore. 

Expand  

Kind of like what Bill Clinton did? 

[Storm-Chaser]

lets just see how this plays out. Going to be interesting no matter what happens. 

 

[UltraMega]

  On 20/05/2022 at 00:00, Storm-Chaser said:

Kind of like what Bill Clinton did? 

Expand  

Sure. I'm not defending Bill Clinton and it's not like two wrongs make a right either. 

[pio]

"The Big Lie"?  

 

You mean this lie, that mainstream media admitted to "a powerful group of companies and individuals "fortified" the election"? Give it a read. Time magazine themselves, which is a left leaning mainstream organization, admits the election had massive changes in 2020 compared to previous years. Massive changes. Or how about the lawsuits, that were never ALLOWED to produce evidence as they were thrown out of court before evidence could be presented, based off technicalities? 

 

Do you mean that big lie? The one from the news agencies which we ALL admit lie? Or do you mean more "conservatives are wrong, they don't get a voice", that big lie? Because I recall 5 years of "Russia hacked the election!", but now that it's flipped we can't say anything? How's that free and fair speech when the Russian thing was PROVEN, in a court of law, to be false? 

 

I've been trying to bite my tongue here, but seriously guys. Both sides are guilty. Government isn't there for the people anymore, from either side. It's all about the money, and it's big money at that. And YES FREE SPEECH MEANS NO CENSORING. Twitter is a mainstream location where public officials go to communicate with their people. When that started happening, Twitter ceased being a private company as it was then operating in public space (so people could talk with their representatives). 

 

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

TIME.COM

---

For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s...

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by pioneerisloud

[UltraMega]

  On 20/05/2022 at 00:21, pioneerisloud said:

"The Big Lie"?  

 

You mean this lie, that mainstream media admitted to "a powerful group of companies and individuals "fortified" the election"? Give it a read. Time magazine themselves, which is a left leaning mainstream organization, admits the election had massive changes in 2020 compared to previous years. Massive changes. Or how about the lawsuits, that were never ALLOWED to produce evidence as they were thrown out of court before evidence could be presented, based off technicalities? 

 

Do you mean that big lie? The one from the news agencies which we ALL admit lie? Or do you mean more "conservatives are wrong, they don't get a voice", that big lie? Because I recall 5 years of "Russia hacked the election!", but now that it's flipped we can't say anything? How's that free and fair speech when the Russian thing was PROVEN, in a court of law, to be false? 

 

I've been trying to bite my tongue here, but seriously guys. Both sides are guilty. Government isn't there for the people anymore, from either side. It's all about the money, and it's big money at that. 

 

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

TIME.COM

---

For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s...

 

Expand  

Dude... Did you even read the article you posted? If so, you clearly didn't understand it. It's not arguing anything in support of your stance at all. It's saying that business and people made ensuring a free and fair election was a top priority so that it would be harder to claim it was stolen. 

[Storm-Chaser]

  On 20/05/2022 at 00:21, pioneerisloud said:

Both sides are guilty.

Expand  

Agreed. Nobody is perfect, no not one. (Including presidents)

 

Plenty of blame to go around on the republican side as well. 

[pio]

  On 20/05/2022 at 00:27, UltraMega said:

Dude... Did you even read the article you posted? If so, you clearly didn't understand it. It's not arguing anything in support of your stance at all. It's saying that business and people made ensuring a free and fair election was a top priority so that it would be harder to claim it was stolen. 

Expand  

Do you know anything about election laws? Because that was illegal prior to 2020. The states are responsible for the election, not people and businesses. 

[Storm-Chaser]

  On 20/05/2022 at 00:04, UltraMega said:

Sure. I'm not defending Bill Clinton and it's not like two wrongs make a right either. 

Expand  

I'm merely saying we are all human; we all make mistakes and fall from grace. Presidents included. 

[UltraMega]

  On 20/05/2022 at 00:29, pioneerisloud said:

Do you know anything about election laws? Because that was illegal prior to 2020. The states are responsible for the election, not people and businesses. 

Expand  

Ensuring a free and fair election is illegal? 

 

Quote the part of the article that you think supports your argument. 

 

Seriously man, your response is laughable. The article you posted is fully in support of the idea that nothing was stolen and everything was fully legal and fair. You're completely misunderstanding the point of it, if you even read it. 

[pio]

  On 20/05/2022 at 00:31, UltraMega said:

Ensuring a free and fair election is illegal? 

 

Quote the part of the article that you think supports your argument. 

 

Seriously man, your response is laughable. The article you posted is fully in support of the idea that nothing was stolen and everything was fully legal and fair. You're completely misunderstanding the point of it, if you even read it. 

Expand  

So no, you don't then. I'm laughable? You are showing your ignorance on the subject, but I'm laughable? Because prior to 2020 it was up to the state representatives to ensure a free and fair election for their state. NOT businesses and certain individuals. That's like saying Facebook can run the 2024 election, screw the electoral process.

 

This isn't my opinion, this is cold hard facts. Prior to 2020, states were responsible for the election, not businesses and people. They changed the election process in 2020, and that's EXACTLY what that article states if you had read it knowing anything at all about past elections. 

[Sir Beregond]

As much as I absolutely despise Twitter, and do believe they are biased as so many organizations are politically, I don't care. Its a platform I refuse to use to exercise my free speech, and as @UltraMega has stated, it's not a news source. As far as I am concerned the real issue is the stupidity of society for treating it like one, which let's be real is just people trying to 1up each other with their quick little gotcha or whatever their character limit equivalent term is for a "sound bite" would be, that their echo chamber "news" came up with to "own" the other side. 

 

As someone just watching the state of politics, it's like watching two sports teams that are bitter enemies fighting each other after the big game.

 

I suppose the argument could be made that it is an avenue for expressing free speech, but back towards Ultra's point, nothing protected me from saying something profoundly untrue or stupid in real life and being mocked for it. Free speech just means I don't suffer any legal consequences for it.

[UltraMega]

  On 20/05/2022 at 00:28, Storm-Chaser said:

Agreed. Nobody is perfect, no not one. (Including presidents)

 

Plenty of blame to go around on the republican side as well. 

Expand  

That doesn't have anything to do with any of this at all. It's an irrelevant thing to say here.

 

I asked you twice about your thoughts on if Putin should be able to post that there are Nazis in Ukraine to build support for his false flag operation and you did not answer. If you cannot address that point, I will take that as you conceding in this debate. 

 

 

There should be a common sense limit to how easy social media makes it for dangerous and easily falsifiable information to flow on their platforms and while it will probably never be perfect, I think the line is drawn in a logical place right now. But again, if you believe the lies you're never going to be happy about them being taken down. 

[UltraMega]

  On 20/05/2022 at 00:36, pioneerisloud said:

So no, you don't then. I'm laughable? You are showing your ignorance on the subject, but I'm laughable? Because prior to 2020 it was up to the state representatives to ensure a free and fair election for their state. NOT businesses and certain individuals. That's like saying Facebook can run the 2024 election, screw the electoral process.

 

This isn't my opinion, this is cold hard facts. Prior to 2020, states were responsible for the election, not businesses and people. They changed the election process in 2020, and that's EXACTLY what that article states if you had read it knowing anything at all about past elections. 

Expand  

I did not say you are laughable, I said your response (your argument) is laughable because you clearly didn't read or at least didn't understand the article you posted. Posting a link to an article that you think says something in support of your stance when it actually says the opposite is indeed laughable to me. 

 

I'll ask you again if you can quote a part of the article that you think is agreeing with you. 

 

 

Here is a quote from the article you posted that pretty much sums up the point of the whole thing:

  Quote

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. 

Expand  

After that quote the article goes on to say it was a bipartisan effort to keep the election from bring tampered with. 

 

 

So I guess what was actually an unorganized common interest among citizen to keep their election from corruption is seen as a big conspiracy to actually corrupt the election to those who wanted Trump to win. Go figure 

Edited May 20, 2022 by UltraMega

[pio]

  On 20/05/2022 at 00:39, UltraMega said:

I did not say you are laughable, I said your response (your argument) is laughable because you clearly didn't read or at least didn't understand the article you posted. Posting a link to an article that you think says something in support of your stance when it actually says the opposite is indeed laughable to me. 

 

I'll ask you again if you can quote a part of the article that you think is agreeing with you. 

Expand  

I already told you.... Businesses and individuals, PRIOR to 2020 weren't allowed to do that as it was illegal. They changed election laws in 2020 to allow it, against state and federal constitution, but the laws passed anyway, which they can do. 

 

They did exactly what conservatives say they did, they cheated. HOWEVER, they did so legally by passing new election laws. So was it really cheating? THAT is actually the real question we should be asking. Because technically they didn't.

 

People who believe the news and pop culture say no it wasn't cheating. People who are more into constitutional rule of law say yes it's cheating as they changed rules to win. If me and you were to sit down and play monopoly, and we agreed to the rules as written in the instructions, everyone agrees in the game there. Now I'm starting to fall behind, and so I decided to change the rules to say only I can buy hotels for my properties. You disagree but go along with it. I then win the game. Did I cheat? 

 

The fact that you have no recollection of the 2016 election even, shows that you don't know much more than what official sources tell you. 2016, it was mail in only for absentee ballots otherwise in person voting, and the count was done and the race called that night by state representatives (not businesses, not people). Same as it had been every other election in history. 2020 was different and the source I showed you proves that. Just read it, remembering that businesses and people weren't allowed to do that previously as it was illegal (election interference). 

Edited May 20, 2022 by pioneerisloud

[UltraMega]

  On 20/05/2022 at 00:52, pioneerisloud said:

I already told you.... Businesses and individuals, PRIOR to 2020 weren't allowed to do that as it was illegal. They changed election laws in 2020 to allow it, against state and federal constitution, but the laws passed anyway, which they can do. 

Expand  

Do you expect me to take your word for it? Weren't allowed to do what exactly? What did they do that was illegal? You're not really saying anything that makes any sense. Trying to prevent voter fraud is not illegal. 

 

Again, please quote the part of the article that you think supports your argument. 

 

None of what your claiming is true or accurate which is why I must insist you quote your sources on this. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by UltraMega

[pio]

  On 20/05/2022 at 00:55, UltraMega said:

Do you expect me to take your word for it? Weren't allowed to do what exactly? What did they do that was illegal? You're not really saying anything that makes any sense. Trying to prevent voter fraud is not illegal. 

 

Again, please quote the part of the article that you think supports your argument. 

Expand  

You already quoted it at me earlier....  

 

Let's try this again..... 

 

If me and you were to sit down and play monopoly, and we agreed to the rules as written in the instructions, everyone agrees in the game there. Now I'm starting to fall behind, and so I decided to change the rules to say only I can buy hotels for my properties. You disagree but go along with it. I then win the game. Did I cheat? 

 

"The Big Lie" in a nut shell right there. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by pioneerisloud