Deleted tweet detection is currently running at reduced
capacity due to changes to the Twitter API. Some tweets that have been
deleted by the tweet author may not be labeled as deleted in the PolitiTweet
interface.
Showing page 334 of 1543.
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@DBRodriguez5 @AnthonyMKreis @GGKrishnamoomoo @espinsegall @CJSprigman I wasn't making an opaque point. Williams's logic was incorrect. He gave a specious analysis of how one might resolve the question of if there is or isn't a right to something. The 10th amendment succinctly illustrates his incorrectness. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey https://t.co/ETSJutm1yP — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@PCritty @mehdirhasan Where have I denied it? — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@TruthsandLies14 @ASFleischman @ijbailey Yes. They're always making me turn off my phone. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey That the question of whether a thing is Constitutionally protected can be adjudicated by poring over the document and verifying there is no specific mention of that thing. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey It feels like the Trump years to me in that T would say something dumb, then a journalist attempting to refute it would introduce falsehoods or specious logic into coverage, then others calling out those falsehoods or specious logic would be unfairly tarred as Trump apologists — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey The call-out used specious logic. That is worth flagging. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ASFleischman @TruthsandLies14 @ijbailey Same. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@jdmortenson @mjs_DC Williams' claim was not, "The commerce clause clearly allows..." If he had I would not have responded as I did. What I am disputing is the logic that *x isn't mentioned so you have no right to do it*, a logic that the Founders explicitly rejected with the 10th — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@mehdirhasan Your error here is to assume that there is or can only be one single threat to free speech, when in fact, there can be many simultaneous threats to it. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@mehdirhasan I deny several features of your argument, so you're already wrong on the "undeniable" claim. If you'd like to pick one among *minor* and *trivial* or dive in on why nonviolent things can be worth opposing I'm happy to discuss. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@mjs_DC I'm implying that Brian Williams logic--*I can find no mention of this in the Constitution, therefore...*--does not hold by the specific language of the Constitution. On the actual matter at hand, I think private airlines can and should impose mandates. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@DBRodriguez5 @AnthonyMKreis @GGKrishnamoomoo @espinsegall @CJSprigman The Society for the Promulgation of the Tenth Amendment has always been all around you, biding our time. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey @ASFleischman He is saying that if you think there is a Constitutional basis to challenge the No Fly list that should complicate your notion of whether there is, in fact, any basis for claiming a right to fly — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey It seems like we often have these misunderstandings when I want to make a discrete claim and you presume I'm engaged in support of whatever side you think it cuts directionally. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@dan_billings I agree airlines can use their power to stop unvaccinated people from flying and I think that they should. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey I'm not defending his claim. As I've said, I favor airlines mandating proof of vaccine or recovery. On the other hand, does the Constitution offer any protection against the federal govt stripping someone's ability to travel by air? Williams' method of answering is silly too — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
On the other hand, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." — PolitiTweet.org
Sarah Reese Jones @PoliticusSarah
Brian Williams on Madison Cawthorn's claim of a constitutional right to air travel, "We checked the constitution, n… https://t.co/R9SCwLR3te
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@philipoforange What if instead the U.S. spearheaded a new Marshall Plan that leveraged existing gyro and doner kebab infrastructure, Italy's Lebanese population, and Spain's language expertise to build a self-sustaining EU capacity to produce delicious Al Pastor tacos? — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@DKThomp There should be a Daily Mirror weekend magazine insert called *Sensational Journalism!* — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@mattyglesias I didn't know that until folks started sending me the New Yorker article, but the photos are Marseille — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@rasmansa @chrislhayes @dylanmatt And yet Republicans are making the mirror image claim. And in their defense, in 2008, 2016 and 2020, I publicly supported the Democratic presidential candidate. But you're correct that I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican either, and it isn't a close call. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
This is not how I would have executed this concept. https://t.co/jfrjtlpAXZ — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@dstreeverVPM @DMoritzRabson If you look at the Tweet I was responding to, you'll see I was arguing with it in the language and framework it put forth. I am not performing anything. I do, in fact, try my utmost to be intellectually honest, and have no allegiance to any political party. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@chrislhayes @dylanmatt (And to be clear about the context, Rufo, who I'm arguing with, is talking about The Two U.S. Parties, and his belief that if you have objections to excesses that he calls CRT, it's irresponsible of you to not be a Team R partisan. Not a claim about any cause or attachment.) — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@SarahTheHaider Yep. Thorny tradeoffs, especially when stretched out across history. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@davedette Not a special intellectual honesty. Lots of people are intellectually honest. And lots of people are dishonest partisans. There is no claim to uniqueness in the Tweet at all. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@billybobdavinci @chrislhayes @dylanmatt I didn't set out to frame things in terms of "transcendance"-I'm using the formulation of the person I was arguing with. That said, it would be grandiose to claim to transcend (say) bias, but not grandiose to claim to transcend (say) single gender friendships. The claim matters. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@dylanmatt If you really thought *that* you'd have no way to distinguish yourself from (say) Breitbart. They just write posts! Some at Vox would instead liken you to a candid shepherd https://t.co/9xY6aiBJ1A I prefer my formulation, for myself. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@chrislhayes @dylanmatt I don't think "I transcend partisanship" is a claim that lacks perspective. But if you disagree, for which party is it that you think I'm a partisan? I can't think of one that would acknowledge me as a legitimate partisan voice for them. — PolitiTweet.org
