𝕏 / Twitter / X, the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter / "MUSK OWNS TWITTER"

4090 Chad said:
I feel like a large part of why Elon is fighting back against these kikes so hard is because one of his children trooned out. Deep down him going after these leftist media kikes is an act of vengeance for him.
Click to expand...
I agree with null on the fact that if you engineer yourself to only have Males inseminated and knock up only bpd whores, that isnt progressives fault, it's an act of higher powers punishing you for trying to control nature.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Kulmeister, GenericReviewerDraco, not william stenchever and 13 others
WelperHelper99 said:
I think Elon is rich enough to bribe his bodyguards not to kill him. I also think he's rich enough to over power the Clinton's Legally
Click to expand...
It's not just the Clinton wealth, it's everyone behind them that's the problem. As for do I think, if push really came to shove, yes I do. But what I was thinking more of was you get a court subpoena to retain any and all records and what-not; but oopsie we just smashed all our phones, and suffered a catastrophic database erasure with no backup, and not be held liable for anything.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco, Stalovna, not william stenchever and 12 others
Kheapathic said:
It's not just the Clinton wealth, it's everyone behind them that's the problem. As for do I think, if push really came to shove, yes I do. But what I was thinking more of was you get a court subpoena to retain any and all records and what-not; but oopsie we just smashed all our phones, and suffered a catastrophic database erasure with no backup, and not be held liable for anything.
Click to expand...
I think Elon is as rich as a fucking Rothschild, and that won't just go away like last time. He will put that on Twitter on a boom box for the world to see. And no, I do not think they can get to him. Than man could build a fortress medieval style if he wanted. Good luck. I'm not dooming
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • DRINK!
Reactions: chalkyresidue, not william stenchever, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 7 others
Nate Higgers said:
The state of Texas literally has laws against BDS. Don’t get ahead of your skis.
Click to expand...
Ken Paxon is a slimy pos and that investigation is for show.

Somehow Montana failed a BDS bill while it passed in NH. Live free or die (for Zion) I guess. The feds DO have a BDS law, although not strictly "anti-BDS" (despite being called "Combating BSD bill") since the bill specified any foreign boycott detrimental to "friendly" countries of the United States. See 50 U.S. Code § 4842.
Reminder that there are no friends in geopolitics. Only continued interests.
For the purpose of implementing the policies set forth in section 4841 of this title, the President shall issue regulations prohibiting any United States person, with respect to that person’s activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States, from taking or knowingly agreeing to take any of the following actions with intent to comply with, further, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by any foreign country, against a country which is friendly to the United States and which is not itself the object of any form of boycott pursuant to United States law or regulation:
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
  • Dumb
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ChromaQuack, quaawaa, AmateurComedicTaxidermist and 8 others
AnthonyLoggerhead said:
Good, I hope the presstitutes at media matters lose their gravy train & have to live off neetbux
Click to expand...
The people at media matters can barely be called the press. They're an activist group and it's pretty much understood that they are an extension of The Democratic Party. Nobody goes to Media Matters for news, they go for dirt on Republicans.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco, TheGoodNamesHaveBeenTaken, Stalovna and 24 others
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: InteracialBowelSyndrome, The Foxtrot, Ether Being and 2 others
♂CANAM productions♂ said:
Ken Paxon is a slimy pos and that investigation is for show.

Somehow Montana failed a BDS bill while it passed in NH. Live free or die (for Zion) I guess. The feds DO have a BDS law, although not strictly "anti-BDS" (despite being called "Combating BSD bill") since the bill specified any foreign boycott detrimental to "friendly" countries of the United States. See 50 U.S. Code § 4842.
Reminder that there are no friends in geopolitics. Only continued interests.
Click to expand...
quick google search BDS is a developmental service? why is this for the kikes?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Ether Being, Markass the Worst and 1 other person
MadStan said:
So where is the letter you implied exists threatening to cut off finances to advertisers who won’t leave?

To quote you "We see you are platforming X, it would be a shame if (financial services supporting you) got wind of it."

Got a letter? Even a hint of this? No? Perhaps MM should be suing you.
Click to expand...
Why do you think they have to threaten them directly? While I'm sure they have, that's not actually required to qualify as tortious interference.

If you are intentionally damaging someone's business relationship with a third party just to cause them economic damage, that qualifies.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: chalkyresidue, SiccDicc, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 8 others
Plaintiff is fat said:
What if the reason they're pursuing what seems such a meritless suit is because they have intel of malfeasance.

Reminder they can read the X DMs of all these fags.

🌈
Click to expand...
People are going to get a real harsh reality check on how private those messages are. You just know they have still been talking to people on that method.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Nitro!, SSj_Ness (Yiffed), MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 4 others
MadStan said:
So Elon states you can say anything on Twitter and it’s free speech - regardless of the damage it does to a person or company . But when someone executes free speech and it hurts his bottom line, he’s against it.

Musk won’t have his cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

Fraud generally isn't considered free speech, legally, let alone on a social media platform operating within that legal system.

Similarly, child porn is also not free speech, in a legal sense, twitter/x banning it is generally not considered anti-speech because free speech advocates still draw lines.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: coof coof, SiccDicc, Smar Mijou and 10 others
DumbDude43 said:
i predict that this lolsuit will go about as well as vig lasagnas lolsuit against his former coworkers
Click to expand...
It depends, musk can hire good lawyers because he's rich and he DOES have a case.

It's like how Null could absolutely sue a large chunk of people fucking with him like media matters did to Musk if on a lesser scale. But as slobbermutt repeatedly mentions - lawsuits take a ton of money. That's something musk actually has.

Null would probably have an even better shot because you just know the deranged trannies aren't even bothering to phrase their threats as even unfortunate implications.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco, Creative Username, Markass the Worst and 10 others
The bar for defamation is higher in the US than anywhere else in the world but literally manufacturing "evidence" clears it

Musk liking some tweet has jack shit to do with this. It doesn't matter what reason advertisers say they paused ad buys. Media Matters' actions are either defamatory and malicious under the law or they aren't independent of what some third party may or may not have done
 
  • Like
  • DRINK!
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: hatehobbyist, Markass the Worst, quaawaa and 8 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back