>a number of Twitter users surveyed by the company said they wanted Twitter to share more information about and slap labels on certain tweets.
<Let's ask the liberal blue checkmark brigade what they want!
<Oh, well, they want more censorship, so more censorship it is!
>has no severability clause… meaning if one aspect is unconstitutional, the remainder stands.
That sounds backwards.
The severability clause means that if one aspect is unconstitutional, the remainder stands.
Having no severability clause means the whole thing goes if any part is found unconstitutional.
Right?
Check Q posts and what Q responds to as [P]
>>8325984 Herridge: No DOJ or FBI personnel under disciplinary or CRIMINAL REVIEW for FISA fuckery
BAKER, NOTABLE
Ok, thank you for clarifying.
Fat finger mistakes and auto-correct screw things up for many!
Q responded to an anon who said that [P] = Payseur. Q responded with no text, just a link to that post in the thread. In all other cases where Q has done this, it indicates that what anon posted is correct.
You can check that statement on the spreadsheet (ctrl+f for "no text, just calling attention to post" without quotes)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Efm2AcuMJ7whuuB6T7ouOIwrE_9S-1vDJLAXIVPZU2g
or any of the scraper sites (this search would have to be done manually).
There has been a somewhat desperate attempt by many to deflect from that, everything from Pope to the newest, and perhaps most ridiculous, Pharaoh. On that, anons did ask Q if [P]=Pope and Q did not respond (so no), but Q did respond to Payseur.
Oh my apologies, I definitely misread that, then. Thank you.