‘Biden Team’ Requested Twitter Scrub Scandalous Hunter Biden Info Days before 2020 Election

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
7,956
2,883
Minnesota
✟207,861.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Given how the Trump campaign and Trump himself (as POTUS) almost ceaselessly demanded an end to media "witch hunts" and "fake news", the excitement over this nothingburger is hilarious.
It is more of the same, more collusion, whether the government or the Biden campaign or the media. Trump indeed was correct. The problem that needs to be corrected is that the left wing media is still given special status when they should be considered a branch of a political party.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,726
✟247,292.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Joe was running for office in 2020, it was the FBI and Justice Department that were working with Big Tech in order to see Joe was elected.
Except for the fact that there is no evidence or logic supporting that claim.
 
Upvote 0

Don't Panic

Active Member
Nov 25, 2022
99
78
39
Newfield
✟2,966.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Private
Joe was running for office in 2020, it was the FBI and Justice Department that were working with Big Tech in order to see Joe was elected.
That's funny, I haven't heard anything about the FBI and the Justice department being investigated for colluding with democrats to throw the election.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,794
36,089
Los Angeles Area
✟820,146.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Trump indeed was correct. The problem that needs to be corrected is that the left wing media is still given special status when they should be considered a branch of a political party.

What a thread. From 'The Left may be suppressing free speech.' to 'The Right should strip First Amendment protections from media.' in 2 moves.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,726
✟247,292.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That's funny, I haven't heard anything about the FBI and the Justice department being investigated for colluding with democrats to throw the election.
The Justice Department, lead by Republican Bill Barr.
It really is a conspiracy stretch to think that Bill was working to interfere so that the Democrats would win and then replace him as the AG.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,933
17,414
Finger Lakes
✟7,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Joe was running for office in 2020, it was the FBI and Justice Department that were working with Big Tech in order to see Joe was elected.
Yeah, against the incumbent who was a government official. This thread seems to be about Biden requesting suppression not the FBI or the DOJ; Biden, who wasn't in government had no coercive power.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Except for the fact that there is no evidence or logic supporting that claim.
Trump lost, ipso facto, “Dems did dirt!!1!!”
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,640
14,524
Here
✟1,196,003.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If this happened, if threats were made or implied, then I'd have a problem with it. But if people simply asked, then I wouldn't have a problem.
It's very different to when Trump was withholding javellins from Ukraine when Ukraine were under attack from the Russians. Trump was withholding and telling them that they must first appear on USA TV and announce an investigation into Joe Biden. The Ukraine president even got to the stage that he had booked his tv slot. But luckily news broke of the extortion scheme and so he didn't need to carry through with it.

If Biden had done something similar with Twitter, then it would be problematic. Although, it doesn't seem that there is any evidence to suggest this has happened. Unless I have missed some news. Has a whistle blower come forward? Or is this something that right wing opinion show hosts have imagined and broadcast into the unthinking minds of their audience??

I do remember that nothing happened to Trump though. His subordinates in the Senate decided it wasn't a problem.
The scenario you mentioned with Trump is certainly a problem.

However, in a broader sense, with regards to government, the threat of force or coercion is always implied. I don't mean that to sound as sinister as it comes across, but it is the role of government. One of the major functions of government is to be an entity that people cede a monopoly to on the creation and enforcement of laws.

So anytime the government is asking something of someone, history and pragmatism tells us that they have the capability to get what they want. Sometimes that's a net good, other times, not so much and it's for seemingly superficial and petty reasons.

For all the valuable functions government performs (sometimes via forcing people to do something they don't want to do), there are also times where they do things like pass expensive and "waste-of-time" futile legislation like they did when some senators were miffed because some people were "cheating at baseball".
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
7,956
2,883
Minnesota
✟207,861.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
What a thread. From 'The Left may be suppressing free speech.' to 'The Right should strip First Amendment protections from media.' in 2 moves.
There is supposed to be a difference between a media entity and a political party. What happens when a political party simply pretends they are the media and demands media protection? We have a political party collaborating with the media, suppressing information from the American people, information that would have made a significant difference in a presidential election. There is a distinction, as an analogy, for non-profit 501c3 organizations. If those organizations engage in politics they can quickly lose their official status with the government.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,726
✟247,292.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The scenario you mentioned with Trump is certainly a problem.

However, in a broader sense, with regards to government, the threat of force or coercion is always implied. I don't mean that to sound as sinister as it comes across, but it is the role of government. One of the major functions of government is to be an entity that people cede a monopoly to on the creation and enforcement of laws.

So anytime the government is asking something of someone, history and pragmatism tells us that they have the capability to get what they want. Sometimes that's a net good, other times, not so much and it's for seemingly superficial and petty reasons.

For all the valuable functions government performs (sometimes via forcing people to do something they don't want to do), there are also times where they do things like pass expensive and "waste-of-time" futile legislation like they did when some senators were miffed because some people were "cheating at baseball".
I'm not so cynical or distrusting of government.
People in government are people too. They have lives, and family and such, and actually, due to their high profiles they are more susceptible to public attacks, and rumours and scandal etc.
I don't see any problem with a family member or a loved one writing a letter to social media and asking to ask them to remove some posts and such. In fact I think many social media sites have a mechanism for this.

They can hear what you have to say, they can agree or disagree with it. They can remove posts or leave them there, it is their prerogative.
But I would have problems if threats were made, or if laws or regulations were created as a vengeful act.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,640
14,524
Here
✟1,196,003.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm not so cynical or distrusting of government.
People in government are people too. They have lives, and family and such, and actually, due to their high profiles they are more susceptible to public attacks, and rumours and scandal etc.
I don't see any problem with a family member or a loved one writing a letter to social media and asking to ask them to remove some posts and such. In fact I think many social media sites have a mechanism for this.

They can hear what you have to say, they can agree or disagree with it. They can remove posts or leave them there, it is their prerogative.
But I would have problems if threats were made, or if laws or regulations were created as a vengeful act.
It's not that I'm trying to be cynical or "distrusting", it's just that I see it for what it is.

"People in government are people"...correct...and what we've learned about people is that when they're in a position of power, a percentage of them will do things to both A) use that power to get what they want, and B) do what they can to preserve that power.

There's no reason to believe that a career politician isn't susceptible to the same sort of "self-interest" "self-preservation" thinking as a CEO or any other "captain of industry".

For some people, the only difference between being a "good person" and a "bad person" is access, connections, and the ability to get away with it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
7,956
2,883
Minnesota
✟207,861.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I'm not so cynical or distrusting of government.
People in government are people too. They have lives, and family and such, and actually, due to their high profiles they are more susceptible to public attacks, and rumours and scandal etc.
I don't see any problem with a family member or a loved one writing a letter to social media and asking to ask them to remove some posts and such. In fact I think many social media sites have a mechanism for this.

They can hear what you have to say, they can agree or disagree with it. They can remove posts or leave them there, it is their prerogative.
But I would have problems if threats were made, or if laws or regulations were created as a vengeful act.
The Democratic National Committee is not a family member of loved one. As to people in government, there is a lot of corruption in the U.S. federal government. The corruption is entrenched, and until there is transparency and accountability it will not change. The media establishment is a big part of it. I have stood up and asked questions of government officials on occasions over the years, and too often I got the response of dead silence. The same with the media, I worked on a story with an AP bureau chief and he left out what I thought was the most crucial part of the story (the part that would make the federal government look bad, there was no question of the facts) and I what I got was dead silence as well. People just don't understand how much those people protect the establishment, I really didn't believe it until I experienced it for myself.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,794
36,089
Los Angeles Area
✟820,146.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
There is supposed to be a difference between a media entity and a political party.

What happens when a political party simply pretends they are the media and demands media protection?

Absolutely nothing.

You know what media entities have? First Amendment protections.
You know what political parties have? First Amendment protections.
You know what flag burners have? First Amendment protections.
You know what Nazis have? First Amendment protections.
You know what Americans with two thumbs have? First Amendment protections.
You know what Americans with more than or fewer than two thumbs have? First Amendment protections.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,640
14,524
Here
✟1,196,003.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Absolutely nothing.

You know what media entities have? First Amendment protections.
You know what political parties have? First Amendment protections.
You know what flag burners have? First Amendment protections.
You know what Nazis have? First Amendment protections.
You know what Americans with two thumbs have? First Amendment protections.
You know what Americans with more than or fewer than two thumbs have? First Amendment protections.

What happens when a private entity becomes the primary vehicle for exercising that public right?

Certainly you have to acknowledge that powerful private entities are a variable in that equation.


To say that "absolutely nothing happens" when a private entity decides to play favorites is disingenuous.

If that were the case, then you'd have no problem with businesses refusing to bake gay wedding cakes.

After all, the disenfranchised couple could simply use their first amendment rights to tell everyone a negative story about the business that denied them, and that would be the solution to the problem, right???



There is truth to the statement of "freedom of speech isn't freedom of reach", but when an entity gets big enough that they control the "reach"-factor, that's fair game for debate.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,794
36,089
Los Angeles Area
✟820,146.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
What happens when a private entity becomes the primary vehicle for exercising that public right?

Even if somehow people's mouths and fingers atrophied, the government would have no power to interfere with the most popular social media site unless the First Amendment is altered.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,640
14,524
Here
✟1,196,003.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Even if somehow people's mouths and fingers atrophied, the government would have no power to interfere with the most popular social media site unless the First Amendment is altered.

Well, evidently it's already been altered then...

If someone says "the election results were legit" is allowed to stay, and "the election was rigged" catches a ban, then that ship has sailed.

To clarify, I'm not an election denier...I voted for Biden, Biden won. But if saying otherwise gets you removed from the town square, then clearly we've already crossed that line.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,794
36,089
Los Angeles Area
✟820,146.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
But if saying otherwise gets you removed from the town square, then clearly we've already crossed that line.
Only if it is the government hauling you away.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,726
✟247,292.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It's not that I'm trying to be cynical or "distrusting", it's just that I see it for what it is.

"People in government are people"...correct...and what we've learned about people is that when they're in a position of power, a percentage of them will do things to both A) use that power to get what they want, and B) do what they can to preserve that power.

There's no reason to believe that a career politician isn't susceptible to the same sort of "self-interest" "self-preservation" thinking as a CEO or any other "captain of industry".

For some people, the only difference between being a "good person" and a "bad person" is access, connections, and the ability to get away with it.
Sure, and so the need for laws and ethics and such. But in the USA system there is very little to halt a corrupt politician who has a significantly sized totally loyal base.

I like the british system better, where the ruling party can and sometimes do, cast a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister and simply remove them when they are rogue and caught out or being rouge. This happens when a party wants to protect the reputation and integrity of the party, to show the people that a corrupt leader is not tolerated.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,726
✟247,292.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, evidently it's already been altered then...

If someone says "the election results were legit" is allowed to stay, and "the election was rigged" catches a ban, then that ship has sailed.

To clarify, I'm not an election denier...I voted for Biden, Biden won. But if saying otherwise gets you removed from the town square, then clearly we've already crossed that line.
Ordinarily I would agree with you here.
That a person should be able to complain and say that the election was rigged.
And ordinarily others would then say, well show me your evidence and they would be able to see the evidence or lack of evidence in all its glory.

But, this situation wasn't ordinary.
You had many people saying it was rigged. Especially the incumbent president.
That's fine-ish albeit disgraceful when that president knew there was no evidence supporting this claim.
They went the legal route and were proven wrong 60 times in court. But it didn't stop there. They kept it up, they got the public riled up, and many were on the edge, wondering, perhaps hoping that a civil war would happen. On Jan 6 many of those people who were duped, who were riled up, crossed the line into violence, they attacked the capitol, attempted an insurrection, they were ready to kill politicians, they were waiting for Trump to command them.

So, at what point are private firms such as social media owners allowed to consider the "election was rigged" troupe to be more dangerous than merely an expression of free speech? When they think this is leading to violence and potential war, why cannot they decide that enough is enough and take measures such that their social media is not going to contribute to the riling up of people?

There is nothing nefarious about them shutting down this lie. They weren't doing it because they are aligned to Democrat party. They did it because they were worried about violence and war.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Would that actually be illegal or unethical?
Definitely unethical. Legalities are tricky...I would bet on legal.


The government asking the owners of twitter to take stuff down?

Of course Twitter could say no to the government.

Right but it's not quite so simple.


I would deem it a problem if the government tried to force Twitter, like, let's say they threatened to unleash an intrusive tax audit, or threatened to create laws against Twitter, or such.
Did the government threaten or pressure Twitter?
Yeah....they did....and Facebook and Google.


They threatened them with significant regulatory oversight if they didn't play ball.
 
Upvote 0