@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
Ah, so because they wrote it down, that means that is how they enforce their rules.
You're an idiot.
No, that's not my stance at all.
Learn to read.
You said that "Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS" and I proved you wrong with reference to their ToS.
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
LOL, you are a pathetic clown.
I noticed you're avoiding the question.
Is you quote "Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS" wrong or not?
Did you not read the link or screenshot I sent?
Have them again:
So, to ask you again, does Twitter explicitly say that child porn is not acceptable on their site or not?
Did you lie, or were you uninformed?
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
You have no right to free speech on a private site.
That is your stance.
Pretty much, just like you have no right to free speech when in another person's private home.
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
Seems like someone is clueless about what is going on in the world;
Were you lying or not?
Is my link and screenshot, proving your claim that "Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS" wrong too much for you to comprehend?
Is it against ToS here to not talk about the tangerine terror by name?
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
No duh, the Supreme Court has been clear on free speech.
Yes, they have, and a private platform setting out ToS is not a free speech issue.
Twitter has set rules for what is allowed and what is not allowed, as a publisher would do.
Nope, this is ToS, something that the majority of private companies have
Ironically enough, Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS, but saying "but they aren't women, though" does violate their TOS. What does it say about you that you are defending them.
Why are you lying?
Do ctrl-f
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
What do you think about the woman Trump talked about in that conversation who led him on so he would buy her a bunch of furniture, despite knowing she wouldn't sleep with him?
So you admit that Frumpy was messing around with women.
This is where you give her the pussy pass.
Nope.
Arianne Zucker was there for most of the conversation and she didn't seem offended, but I guess you are offended for her.
I don't care what Arianne thinks, I know what's on the tape.
Are you saying that a private company cannot set out ToS for the platform it has created?
ToS is not editorialising.
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
"You can grab them by the pussy BECAUSE THEY LET YOU"
I have sex with my husband because he lets me.
'I just start kissing them, I DON'T EVEN WAIT'
Yes, and your claims about the Kavanaugh hearings are false.
This isn't hard.
It's very easy to say that there was a treasonous, attempted coup, on Jan 6th. If you can't utter that simple fact without engaging in (false) whataboutisms then you simply look like you're a fascist who hates democracy.
Calling me juvenile names doesn't change the facts.
See where the yellow highlighting is? Tick that for freeleech view.
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
I already pointed out Mad Maxine's disputing the Electoral College votes for GWB, but against the rules doing it without a Senator co-signer. She said that she didn't give a damned about the rules, GWB was not going to be President.
Another correction, Maxine objected, as she has a right as a House member to do, knowing that no Senator would co-sponsor her objection. She was making a point.
Because of no co-sponsor, there was no debate on the objection, nor a vote in both chambers, so your characterisation of "against the rules doing it without a Senator co-signer" is nonsense.
The difference between what she did and what the treasonous GOP did is that they raised their objections based on the evidence free claims of fraud, and, because they got senators to co-sponsor there was a debate and vote on the objection where it was, correctly, swatted away for the anti-democracy rabble rousing it was.
It was within the rules, and they're entitled to do it, but they did it with treasonous intent. She didn't.
@raphjd said in New York undercounted C-19 deaths:
I'll have to look for an article on it.
Well, like with the NY thing, how do we know unless we investigate it and be open about it.
I can't wait.
@raphjd said in New York undercounted C-19 deaths:
We did have cases where people died of other things, like cancer, who never had C-19 but the cause of death was crossed out and C-19 penned in.
Is there a reputable source for this?
And has it been demonstrated that these changes, whether intentional or error, have enough impact to statistically change the massive death count from COVID in the UK?
@raphjd said in New York undercounted C-19 deaths:
If I test positive for C-19 today and 3weeks and 6 days later I get killed by being run over by a cross town bus, it's listed as a C-19 death. The previous UK counting method was if I ever die from anything after a positive C-19 test it would count as a C-19 death.
Incorrect.
The cause of death there would be put down as 'vehicular impact'. It might be noted that you had COVID19, but unless your COVID19 symtoms directly caused you to run out in front of a moving vehicle, or caused the vehicle to veer into you, it will merely be a footnote, not the cause.
Also, the '28 days from a postive test' is a fudge by UK gov to undercount their figures. You have the farcical situation of people dying, in hospital, suffering from severe COVID, who die 38 days after admittal, and 35 days since their test result.
Those people are not caught in the daily figures, but they will be counted by ONS as the death cert will correctly record COVID as the cause.
