I'm not taking anyone's word for it. Which is why I'm asking questions.

Asking questions of the people who make the claim is the first step in digging.

I ask them why they think that. If they have any source other than their personal opinion, I then head there and start digging from there.

There are plenty of other military contractors out there. Why not any of them? Do you think Musk is the only military contractor Trump knew or trusted?

Military contractors are all extraordinarily wealthy.

So far, I don't see anything that deals with Musk personally, that can't be said of many others, other than that some people here find him a source of entertainment.

So that really gives me the impression that some people just want to believe that this happened, and really have no reason other than they personally like him.

Just my opinion, of course.

Ok. And there is no way he can do the SOH job without making fun of the people in his case?

Ok, but why and how was it determined that Elon Musk should be given Twitter? Other than he met with Trump?

What does having large military contracts have to do with running Twitter?

So those with the most money and influence should run Twitter?

None of that makes any logical sense to me.

So you think that because the Speaker of the House must speak, they can't be given a gag rule?

You do know that gag rules don't mean a person can't say anything at all, right?

I'll wait for however long it takes you to find such a law. Even if it's a year from now, I'd still like to see it.

Because this logic makes zero sense to me.

A gag order saying he can't call certain people in his case names or whatever the gag order says shouldn't have anything to do with the SOH doing his job.

So Twitter was just given to Musk, free of charge?

Why Musk, then? Why not you or me or my friend Fred down the street?

You don't actually think that would actually circumvent a gag order, do you?

I can't tell if you're serious or joking here.

And a Republic is a Representative Democracy. As opposed to a Direct Democracy.

Instead of everyone voting on each and every law we want to be passed (or opposed), we vote for people to represent us in making those laws. Such as governors, mayors, senators, and presidents, etc....

I keep seeing this, and I have no idea why people think this.

Why would the Speaker of the House be exempt from a gag order, especially if the gag order has nothing to do with their role as SOH?

Where is this idea coming from?

Why?

Where in the world did you get that idea?

If it's determined that they said it on his behalf, no.

Gag orders have been routinely upheld by the Supreme Court. They do not inherently violate someone's First Amendment rights.

But they are considered on a case-by-case basis. If President Trump can make a case on how the gag order violates his First Amendment, then he can ask for a ruling on that.

But Free Speech doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want. I think that many people on this board are under that impression. This is concerning, because of how often we bring up the Constitution here. This is stuff we learned in middle school civics class.

Yeah, limits like slander, harassment, incitement of violence, and child pornography, just to name a few.

Frankly, I'm finding it alarming that so many patriots don't really understand what is and is not allowed under Freedom of Speech.

This is stuff we learned in middle school. At least some of us did.

I'm getting the impression many people here think Freedom of Speech means you can say anything, anywhere.

I don't equate child pornography to free speech. But people who are in favor of it certainly do.

Did you not understand that I'm against that?

Because I thought it was quite clear when I said that we should be grateful that free speech isn't absolute, otherwise child pornography would be legal.

Or are you making a distinction concerning the term "speech" in "free speech"?

Because "freedom of speech" is also "freedom of expression". It's not just about people actually speaking, as in talking (speech).

So freedom of speech also applies to film, photos, recordings, cartoons, texts, etc...

But at one point, the US Supreme Court ruled that it did. And it was that way for around 50 years.

And then another Supreme Court reversed it.

It all boils down to opinion. And activism is definitely something that influences the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Without activism, would slavery have never been abolished? Because slavery was upheld by the Supreme Court at one time.

My point is, that the US Constitution is something that can be interpreted 100 different ways by 100 different people.

Which is why we have the Supreme Court. Do they get everything right all the time? Of course not. Does that mean we should do away with it and let everyone just interpret the Constitution how they want? Of course not.

So until someone can figure out a solution to this dilemma, we will still have to go by how the US Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

We can't just chuck the whole system whenever it fails us personally.

Civil Disobedience and saying we all should be governed by our truths are two different things.

I'm not sure why you're even bringing up civil disobedience in this conversation.

Unless you're suggesting that President Trump should engage in civil disobedience and ignore his gag order? Because I'm not sure that would be seen as civil disobedience. But I'm not a constitutional scholar, and can't really say. Either way, I doubt it would go well for him if he did.

Again, advocating for civil disobedience is all great, until you land in prison.

I noticed you ignored my response to your earlier post. So, do you still suggest we all live by "truth" when that might also result in you being decapitated by Muslims who are living by THEIR truth?

I think Catsfive is the only one who can say for certain what he meant.

That sounds great until you land in prison. Or until that same philosophy is used against YOU somehow.

"Truth" is subjective. For instance, Muslims believe that their religion is the truth. Just the same as Christians do.

So if you advocate for people to be governed by their truths, then many Muslims would feel that they have the right to kill non-Muslims, based on their religion, which they believe to be the truth . So do you still believe we should be governed by what we think is truth?

You can't dictate to others what YOU feel is the truth is what THEY should live by.

We should be more concerned with FACTS than TRUTH.

How so? What IS and IS NOT Constitutional is always up for debate

Which is how Roe vs Wade was reversed.

Well, we in the US are governed by our laws here.

And our laws are based on the US Constitution.

And the US Supreme Court is who decides on the legality of laws that are based on the US Constitution.

So, if he believes his gag order is unconstitutional, then he can certainly take his case on that as far as he can.

But gag orders themselves are not unconstitutional. He has to show HOW his gag order is unconstitutional. Just pointing to the US Constitution and offering his opinion on what the Founding Fathers meant by freedom of speech doesn't work.

And we should be glad that things don't work that way, because if they did, every pedophile could do the same and say laws against child pornography are unconstitutional because THEIR idea of what the First Amendment means says so.

So then "less deadly" or just saline injections instead of a vaccine at all is I guess what the question is as to what Catsfive means, I suppose.

You can read the Bible without believing certain elements (the supernatural aspects) are true. If you're using facts you found in the Bible to make your argument, what does it matter if you believe Jesus is the son of God?

Does the Bible magically change its contents depending on who is reading it? No.

Just because someone might not believe in the supernatural aspects to the Bible doesn't mean they can't use it as a contemporary text of the time. Some places and people mentioned in the Bible are certainly real, as are historic occurrences. Those things can be used to make an argument no matter if the person making the argument is Christian or not.

As long as someone can differentiate between fact and opinion, it shouldn't matter if a person is Christian or not, in this case.

It's also an issue of being able to use the content found in the Bible as the basis for an argument, even if you don't believe in the supernatural elements of the Bible.

For instance, someone can agree with the teachings of Jesus that are found in the Bible without actually believing in the divinity of Jesus.

I think the whole "There is no Anon!" thing is beating a dead horse.

For whatever reason, it's how the general public identifies people who follow Q. It's been that way for years. No one owns the movement, and I'm sure that this isn't the only board for followers of Q. So just because people here don't like it, the rest of the world is supposed to change what they call the group they're speaking of?

I think it's silly to act disingenuous over being called QAnon. "Oh, QAnon, who is that?" 🙄

It's almost as silly as being upset people aren't using your preferred pronouns.