Twitter locks McConnell campaign account over video of protesters hurling threats

[UCFWayne]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/twitter-mcconnell-campaign-lock-1452695

Twitter locked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s campaign account Wednesday for posting a profanity-laced video of protesters hurling threats toward the GOP lawmaker’s Kentucky home.

im not a big mcconnell fan, but they wont even let them show the protests outside of his home. this is some 1984 level stuff. these tech companies are crossing the line.

 

[fried-chicken]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/twitter-mcconnell-campaign-lock-1452695

Twitter locked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s campaign account Wednesday for posting a profanity-laced video of protesters hurling threats toward the GOP lawmaker’s Kentucky home.

im not a big mcconnell fan, but they wont even let them show the protests outside of his home. this is some 1984 level stuff. these tech companies are crossing the line.

A private company making their own terms of service and following them = 1984

The government should step in and regulate these companies = capitalism

This man is a buffoon.

 

[Crazyhole]

A private company making their own terms of service and following them = 1984

The government should step in and regulate these companies = capitalism

This man is a buffoon.

The issue is that they aren't following them equally. No the government shouldn't step in, but Twitter is showing their bias.

 

[fried-chicken]

The issue is that they aren't following them equally. No the government shouldn't step in, but Twitter is showing their bias.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with that claim but who cares if they are? Do we need a thread for every company with political leanings? I mean, Wayne claims to be a libertarian and it's just a blatant disguise so he doesn't get ridiculed for being a Trump nut swinger.

 

[Husk in butt]

Not agreeing or disagreeing with that claim but who cares if they are? Do we need a thread for every company with political leanings? I mean, Wayne claims to be a libertarian and it's just a blatant disguise so he doesn't get ridiculed for being a Trump nut swinger.

Controlling the propaganda is different vs just a random company that leans left or right. Facebook and Twitter can control thoughts. Nazis had a propaganda wing just for this type of thought control.

 

[fried-chicken]

Controlling the propaganda is different vs just a random company that leans left or right. Facebook and Twitter can control thoughts. Nazis had a propaganda wing just for this type of thought control.

Facebook and Twitter aren't the government. Hope that helps.

 

[Sir Galahad]

I had twitter for about a week, after reading all the tweets I quickly realized that 95% of the people that were either tweeting me or responding to me I would not be friends with. Why would I interact with them if I knew I would not do so in person. Twitter no more.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Facebook and Twitter aren't the government. Hope that helps.

They have their own TOS and are required to police their platforms by their own standards. They aren't even doing that. The have a ban on making threats against persons on Twitter and yet they banned the Team Mitch account for posting a video of OTHERS making a threat against McConnell. Twitter then allowed "Massacre Mitch" to trend on their own platform.

I'm guessing the lefties at Twitter didn't want it getting publicized that liberals were outside McConnell's family home, chanting death threats and calling for violence against him at a time when national lefties are running around claiming Trump is the source of all political violence.

Pathetic.

 

[fried-chicken]

I had twitter for about a week, after reading all the tweets I quickly realized that 95% of the people that were either tweeting me or responding to me I would not be friends with. Why would I interact with them if I knew I would not do so in person. Twitter no more.

I wish you would take the same approach here.

 

[UCFWayne]

hamas is a terrorist organization, and yet they have a twitter handle that hasnt been blocked.

 

[UCFBS]

hamas is a terrorist organization, and yet they have a twitter handle that hasnt been blocked.

Their censorship only applies to Americans, and almost always Conservatives -- with very rare exceptions.

 

[DaShuckster]

Twitter locked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s campaign account

OH THE HORROR!!!!

Maybe now Mitch McConnell has a teensie-weensie little taste of how the majority of Americans feel when he's been locking us out of any meaningful gun control legislation for years.

 

[UCFKnight85]

OH THE HORROR!!!!

Maybe now Mitch McConnell has a teensie-weensie little taste of how the majority of Americans feel when he's been locking us out of any meaningful gun control legislation for years.

Oh STFU

 

[goodknightfl]

OH THE HORROR!!!!

Maybe now Mitch McConnell has a teensie-weensie little taste of how the majority of Americans feel when he's been locking us out of any meaningful gun control legislation for years.

Well you have this teensie-weensie little problem called the Constitution.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Just to be clear, Shookster supports people standing outside a senators’ house to threaten he and his family with violence, all because Shookster disagrees with the Senator on policy and thinks that this makes him fair game for threats and violence to include his children.

What a sick, violent viewpoint.

 

[UCFBS]

... I mean, Wayne claims to be a libertarian and it's just a blatant disguise so he doesn't get ridiculed for being a Trump nut swinger.

^^^ I'll update that to ... "If you're not with us, or Trump, you're still 'a Trump nut swinger.'"

OH THE HORROR!!!!
Maybe now Mitch McConnell has a teensie-weensie little taste of how the majority of Americans feel

So stalk and threaten politicians until you get your way, correct?

when he's been locking us out of any meaningful gun control legislation for years.

But would a majority, let alone supermajority, of Americans accept what are actually in those bills? Is it really McConnell 'blocking' them, or the fact that 4 out of 5 Americans recognize the government cannot stop gun, like any, violence in general?

 

[DaShuckster]

Well you have this teensie-weensie little problem called the Constitution.

Hey I'm no Constitutional Law expert, but I don't believe the Founding Fathers said anything about military assault weapons like the AR-15.

 

[Crazyhole]

Hey I'm no Constitutional Law expert, but I don't believe the Founding Fathers said anything about military assault weapons like the AR-15.

Lazy argument. They also said nothing about phone calls or internet message boards.

 

[UCFBS]

Hey I'm no Constitutional Law expert, but I don't believe the Founding Fathers said anything about military assault weapons like the AR-15.

Or ignorance of what 'military assault weapons' actually are.

It's directly like saying we should outlaw 30kph electric go-carts because they look like a 300kph supercar. Bolt-action rifles are almost as fast and shoot the same high velocity/energy, many even much higher velocity/energy cartridges. And mass shooters have used revolvers and shotguns.

Heck, the Parkland shooter used only 10 cartridge magazines.

That's why every 'common sense gun control' argument is about banning all firearms, even those invented in the lifespan of the Founding Fathers. That's why people who argue such are Libtards, and failed basic physical science.

 

[Crazyhole]

Or ignorance of what 'military assault weapons' actually are.

It's directly like saying we should outlaw 30kph electric go-carts because they look like a 300kph supercar. Bolt-action rifles are almost as fast and shoot the same high velocity/energy, many even much higher velocity/energy cartridges. And mass shooters have used revolvers and shotguns.

Heck, the Parkland shooter used only 10 cartridge magazines.

That's why every 'common sense gun control' argument is about banning all firearms, even those invented in the lifespan of the Founding Fathers. That's why people who argue such are Libtards, and failed basic physical science.

Not to mention the fact that at the time, all guns were military style weapons.

 

[DaShuckster]

Lazy argument. They also said nothing about phone calls or internet message boards.

But phone calls and internet message boards aren't responsible for slaughtering innocent people in cold blood.

Or ignorance of what 'military assault weapons' actually are.

Weird how we banned them once before -- and let the damn thing expire.

Talk about ignorance!

 

[UCFWayne]

Hey I'm no Constitutional Law expert, but I don't believe the Founding Fathers said anything about military assault weapons like the AR-15.

i dont think you know the founding fathers and their thoughts on the citizens ability to own weapons as much as you think you do.

madison wanted everyone to have the ability to own canons. that seems more military grade than a simple ar15 to me.

not to mention there were rapid fire weapons at the signing of the constitution, such as the puckle gun

 

[UCFBS]

i dont think you know the founding fathers and their thoughts on the citizens ability to own weapons as much as you think you do.
madison wanted everyone to have the ability to own canons. that seems more military grade than a simple ar15 to me.
not to mention there were rapid fire weapons at the signing of the constitution, such as the puckle gun

And airguns with almost as much velocity as the black powder of the time.

Really nothing has changed since the 1780s-1820s than doubling of velocity with smokeless powder in the second half of the 19th century.

 

[Crazyhole]

But phone calls and internet message boards aren't responsible for slaughtering innocent people in cold blood.

Weird how we banned them once before -- and let the damn thing expire.

Talk about ignorance!

Again, lazy argument. Guns were capable of killing innocent people back then as well. Your argument is also a complete misunderstanding of what the Bill of Rights was intended to do. The signers were not getting on board with anything that restricted the people's rights, they were getting on board with restricting the governments authority. We do this every single time, and every single time someone has to posit the idea that if they framers only knew what would happen they would have done things differently. It's just so disingenuous that it's almost laughable. These are guys who were going through the transition in weapons between swords to guns. That's a way bigger gap than the transition between single shot guns and automatic guns. It's fine to be for gun control but don't try to paint the founders as ignorant or misunderstood.

 

[Cubs79]

Again, lazy argument. Guns were capable of killing innocent people back then as well. Your argument is also a complete misunderstanding of what the Bill of Rights was intended to do. The signers were not getting on board with anything that restricted the people's rights, they were getting on board with restricting the governments authority. We do this every single time, and every single time someone has to posit the idea that if they framers only knew what would happen they would have done things differently. It's just so disingenuous that it's almost laughable. These are guys who were going through the transition in weapons between swords to guns. That's a way bigger gap than the transition between single shot guns and automatic guns. It's fine to be for gun control but don't try to paint the founders as ignorant or misunderstood.

They might not have done things differently, but they did make the constitution able to be amended for a reason. Basically, they gave us the ability to make changes if we feel things should be done differently.

 

[UCFBS]

They might not have done things differently, but they did make the constitution able to be amended for a reason. Basically, they gave us the ability to make changes if we feel things should be done differently.

But 4 out of 5 people want the 2nd Amendment and believe government cannot stop anything. That's what the 'gun control/safety' folk, with their 'physics-ignorant' arguments, don't seem to understand.

You don't have control of a majority, much more a supermajority, to change the 2nd Amendment. So you're lying your butts off, and using science that doesn't exist, to try to convince people otherwise. This includes Warren wanting to make it so expensive to exercise, only the rich and politicians will have them, along with organized crime.

The right-wing does the same on abortion, trying to limit it or make it unfeasible or untenable. As every judge will admit, that is just dead-wrong from a Constitutional standpoint. It's flies in the face of everything the Constitution stands for. In fact, the alleged 'Red Flag' laws like TAPS are actually about taking away due process on everything, not just guns!

That's what scares me, not whether the 2nd Amendment exists. The left-wing is willing and working to get the right-wing to, some of which will, capitulate by making it about killing due process and freedom outside of guns as well!

 

[Cubs79]

But 4 out of 5 people want the 2nd Amendment and believe government cannot stop anything. That's what the 'gun control/safety' folk, with their 'physics-ignorant' arguments, don't seem to understand.

You don't have control of a majority, much more a supermajority, to change the 2nd Amendment. So you're lying your butts off, and using science that doesn't exist, to try to convince people otherwise. This includes Warren wanting to make it so expensive to exercise, only the rich and politicians will have them, along with organized crime.

The right-wing does the same on abortion, trying to limit it or make it unfeasible or untenable. As every judge will admit, that is just dead-wrong from a Constitutional standpoint. It's flies in the face of everything the Constitution stands for. In fact, the alleged 'Red Flag' laws like TAPS are actually about taking away due process on everything, not just guns!

That's what scares me, not whether the 2nd Amendment exists. The left-wing is willing and working to get the right-wing to, some of which will, capitulate by making it about killing due process and freedom outside of guns as well!

You can have the 2nd amendment and still have gun regulations, as we do now.

 

[DaShuckster]

It's fine to be for gun control but don't try to paint the founders as ignorant or misunderstood.

I could have sworn our Government had an assault weapons ban once before. I guess they had it all wrong back in the 90s, huh?

 

[DaShuckster]

You can have the 2nd amendment and still have gun regulations, as we do now.

B-B-But haven't you heard??!?!? it's a slippery slope that will lead to the Government controlling us all!!!!

 

[UCFBS]

You can have the 2nd amendment and still have gun regulations, as we do now.

You mean like how Texas tried to address abortion clinics with hospital like requirements? Same exact approach!

Listen to Warren and others. These laws are about not just banning all guns, not only registering and seizing them, but making the right impossible to exercise. And several things, like TAPS, are about doing away with all due process -- beyond just guns, applicable to many things other than guns.

And stop with this 'military assault weapon' BS, even if the US media proliferates it. It means all weapons with more than 7 cartridges, all self-loading weapons including revolvers, and even bolt action rifles which aren't any slower. Several politicians have not only admitted as such, but believe it's the way to eradicate all [legal] gun [ownership], and admit to such when cornered.

Even the courts have shown and exposed how many of these are not only Unconstitutional, but even worse, laws in Chicago, DC, New York state, etc... have seen government purposely hide the statistics when the crime rates do not go down.

It's like Feinstein holding up a gun runner gun, the government will forge everything, and people like yourself love it.

 

[UCFBS]

What's impossible here is that people feel they should threaten those who merely trying to uphold civil rights. You're no better than Antifa.

 

[Cubs79]

You mean like how Texas tried to address abortion clinics with hospital like requirements? Same exact approach!

Listen to Warren and others. These laws are about not just banning all guns, not only registering and seizing them, but making the right impossible to exercise. And several things, like TAPS, are about doing away with all due process -- beyond just guns, applicable to many things other than guns.

And stop with this 'military assault weapon' BS, even if the US media proliferates it. It means all weapons with more than 7 cartridges, all self-loading weapons including revolvers, and even bolt action rifles which aren't any slower. Several politicians have not only admitted as such, but believe it's the way to eradicate all [legal] gun [ownership], and admit to such when cornered.

Even the courts have shown and exposed how many of these are not only Unconstitutional, but even worse, laws in Chicago, DC, New York state, etc... have seen government purposely hide the statistics when the crime rates do not go down.

It's like Feinstein holding up a gun runner gun, the government will forge everything, and people like yourself love it.

I mean like we have now. We have regulations now, and we still have the 2nd amendment.

 

[Cubs79]

What's impossible here is that people feel they should threaten those who merely trying to uphold civil rights. You're no better than Antifa.

Huh?

 

[UCFWayne]

I could have sworn our Government had an assault weapons ban once before. I guess they had it all wrong back in the 90s, huh?

you dont even know what the definition of an assault weapon is.

 

[UCFBS]

I mean like we have now. We have regulations now, and we still have the 2nd amendment.

Not in several states. The laws are so confusing, even police are having great difficulty. People are getting felony charges for doing nothing.

The state of NY tried to cover up those statistics, until the courts finally ordered them to disclose.

 

[DaShuckster]

you dont even know what the definition of an assault weapon is.

Weird.

Somehow Congress was able to figure it out what constituted a semi-automatic firearm back in 1994.

 

[Cubs79]

Not in several states. The laws are so confusing, even police are having great difficulty. People are getting felony charges for doing nothing.

The state of NY tried to cover up those statistics, until the courts finally ordered them to disclose.

Not in several states what? Are you arguing for states to have less say in this matter?

 

[UCFWayne]

Weird.

Somehow Congress was able to figure it out what constituted a semi-automatic firearm back in 1994.

a semi-automatic rifle is not an assault weapon.i i know they can look almost identical, but you cant even give a proper definition. please educate yourself on the proper definition.

assault weapons have been removed from the public since the late 1930s and again the late 1980s. that ban from the 90s that you talk about didnt have anything to do with real assault weapons. it dealt with cosmetic features that looked scary.

 

[DaShuckster]

that ban from the 90s that you talk about didnt have anything to do with real assault weapons.

Then don't sweat it for crissakes.

You fukcing Wanna-be Rambos so damned concerned about losing your toys while these mass shooting sprees become a weekly occurance it's nauseating.

 

[Cubs79]

a semi-automatic rifle is not an assault weapon.i i know they can look almost identical, but you cant even give a proper definition. please educate yourself on the proper definition.

assault weapons have been removed from the public since the late 1930s and again the late 1980s. that ban from the 90s that you talk about didnt have anything to do with real assault weapons. it dealt with cosmetic features that looked scary.

The definition of what constitutes an assault weapon is not a universal thing. People have different definitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

The government had their criteria of what was considered an assault weapon for the ban.

So if we changed what we called them could we stop these arguments with semantics?