Donald Trump
Comments
-
People who thought BLM protesters were given too much slack, what's your take on this?
E.g. Police let proud boys into capitol and take selfies with them https://imgur.com/gallery/PFI8okO- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
My objection is not to the media not sharing Trump's tweets, it's only to what twitter is doing (I've made the argument before about social media being the new public square) and the power of social media generally. Free speech is interpreted very broadly in the USA so unless Trump is directly inciting violence I don't think he's broken any law. He's behaved irresponsibly and should be condemned but I don't think it should be up to twitter to decide the consequences or claim statements to be false.rick_chasey said:
I mean, there is a public order case in this specific instance.nickice said:I suppose you could look at it the other way round and say that any president who is regularly getting tweets deleted and banned is not fit to be president.
A news team deciding not to share Trump's statements for fear of incitement would not be seen as censorship by most normal people.
I'm not sure either way tbh.0 -
One of the more damaging (though not immediately so) things about this is that this must surely lead to a Republican president not being elected for a long time or even being in the running. You only have to look at the SNP in Scotland to see the dangers of not having a decent opposition.0
-
nickice said:
One of the more damaging (though not immediately so) things about this is that this must surely lead to a Republican president not being elected for a long time or even being in the running. You only have to look at the SNP in Scotland to see the dangers of not having a decent opposition.
You don't have to look that far.0 -
You are underestimating how entrenched Rep vs. Dem is. Even now, after the worst president in their entire history, the Republican party has only just lost both houses.nickice said:One of the more damaging (though not immediately so) things about this is that this must surely lead to a Republican president not being elected for a long time or even being in the running. You only have to look at the SNP in Scotland to see the dangers of not having a decent opposition.
0 -
Yeah, that's why it is in the hands of the Reps. If they all decide to turn moderate tomorrow, they keep the extremists out.First.Aspect said:
You are underestimating how entrenched Rep vs. Dem is. Even now, after the worst president in their entire history, the Republican party has only just lost both houses.nickice said:One of the more damaging (though not immediately so) things about this is that this must surely lead to a Republican president not being elected for a long time or even being in the running. You only have to look at the SNP in Scotland to see the dangers of not having a decent opposition.
0 -
He's been inciting violence for months. He's only got away with it because he's president.nickice said:
My objection is not to the media not sharing Trump's tweets, it's only to what twitter is doing (I've made the argument before about social media being the new public square) and the power of social media generally. Free speech is interpreted very broadly in the USA so unless Trump is directly inciting violence I don't think he's broken any law. He's behaved irresponsibly and should be condemned but I don't think it should be up to twitter to decide the consequences or claim statements to be false.rick_chasey said:
I mean, there is a public order case in this specific instance.nickice said:I suppose you could look at it the other way round and say that any president who is regularly getting tweets deleted and banned is not fit to be president.
A news team deciding not to share Trump's statements for fear of incitement would not be seen as censorship by most normal people.
I'm not sure either way tbh.0 -
I feel like it is however important to point out that they have lost both houses.First.Aspect said:
You are underestimating how entrenched Rep vs. Dem is. Even now, after the worst president in their entire history, the Republican party has only just lost both houses.nickice said:One of the more damaging (though not immediately so) things about this is that this must surely lead to a Republican president not being elected for a long time or even being in the running. You only have to look at the SNP in Scotland to see the dangers of not having a decent opposition.
Trump is more popular than many would like him to be, but, he isn't popular enough to win lots of elections.0 -
It's also worth remembering the baked-in advantage Republicans have in the electoral system: the Constitution was designed to ensure that rural America wasn't forgotten, but the outcome is that in the 50/50 split in the Senate, Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than the Republicans.0
-
Examples?kingstongraham said:
He's been inciting violence for months. He's only got away with it because he's president.nickice said:
My objection is not to the media not sharing Trump's tweets, it's only to what twitter is doing (I've made the argument before about social media being the new public square) and the power of social media generally. Free speech is interpreted very broadly in the USA so unless Trump is directly inciting violence I don't think he's broken any law. He's behaved irresponsibly and should be condemned but I don't think it should be up to twitter to decide the consequences or claim statements to be false.rick_chasey said:
I mean, there is a public order case in this specific instance.nickice said:I suppose you could look at it the other way round and say that any president who is regularly getting tweets deleted and banned is not fit to be president.
A news team deciding not to share Trump's statements for fear of incitement would not be seen as censorship by most normal people.
I'm not sure either way tbh.0 -
No. Wrong again. You don't understand this for some reason.rick_chasey said:
Yeah, that's why it is in the hands of the Reps. If they all decide to turn moderate tomorrow, they keep the extremists out.First.Aspect said:
You are underestimating how entrenched Rep vs. Dem is. Even now, after the worst president in their entire history, the Republican party has only just lost both houses.nickice said:One of the more damaging (though not immediately so) things about this is that this must surely lead to a Republican president not being elected for a long time or even being in the running. You only have to look at the SNP in Scotland to see the dangers of not having a decent opposition.
The extremists will tie themselves to the Rep party because they believe it is their party.
If the GOP decide to turn moderate the extremists wil just say that they have sold out to the deep state and that they will fight to get "their" party back.
Trump will not set up his own party because that is not how the US political scene works. There are only two parties in the US. End of.
People like Cruz will not turn their back on MAGA or Trumpism because they know they now have no other political route - they tied their colors to the Trump Rep mast and will stay there.
The extremists are 500% against the Democrats, anything socialist and anything that isn't Rep/Trump.
Its not that difficult to get Richard..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
But will there be another Republican president in the foreseeable future? Anyone who was in any way associated with Trump is out and Silicon Valley quite openly favours Democrats. Things can only get worse from here.First.Aspect said:
You are underestimating how entrenched Rep vs. Dem is. Even now, after the worst president in their entire history, the Republican party has only just lost both houses.nickice said:One of the more damaging (though not immediately so) things about this is that this must surely lead to a Republican president not being elected for a long time or even being in the running. You only have to look at the SNP in Scotland to see the dangers of not having a decent opposition.
0 -
Well said Priti and Boris:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55571482"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Surprised no one has picked up on the answer to the last YouGov question in Rick's post - 56% think there was enough fraud to have an impact on the result, with only 36% disagreeing. That's pretty worrying.
It will be interesting to see what happens obver the next 14 days. Trump clearly is not fit to remain in office but is anyone prepared to do anything about that?
On the twitter front, who is deciding that his tweets be deleted? Preventing retweets and marking them up for what they are is one thing, but in the near future there will need to be a discussion around who decides what should and should not remain posted, and who actually is responsible for deciding that.0 -
This line did make me chucklerick_chasey said:
“I would invite him to come and see the whole of London and take him around the city, except I wouldn't want to expose Londoners to any unnecessary risk of meeting Donald Trump,”0 -
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Vlad's lads will be extra happy to see the outcome of their works, must exceed by far what they hoped to achieve with their bots and disinformation campaigns.1
-
It was a snap poll in the middle of the night, and most other polls run exactly the opposite. That so many Rep's believe it is worrying though, but again that is all they have been told until McConnel finally found his testicles yesterday.Dorset_Boy said:Surprised no one has picked up on the answer to the last YouGov question in Rick's post - 56% think there was enough fraud to have an impact on the result, with only 36% disagreeing. That's pretty worrying.
It will be interesting to see what happens obver the next 14 days. Trump clearly is not fit to remain in office but is anyone prepared to do anything about that?
On the twitter front, who is deciding that his tweets be deleted? Preventing retweets and marking them up for what they are is one thing, but in the near future there will need to be a discussion around who decides what should and should not remain posted, and who actually is responsible for deciding that.
Right now there is a Trump cult. It will fade to some extent, but people like Ted Cruz are only marginally less fascist and that could tip the balance.
There is no doubt that Trump has got worse as time has gone on, but for a long time he was just about credible enough to garner widespread support. Make no mistake - had he not botched the pandemic response, he would have been comfortably re-elected. The Republicans will know this and will realise that if you are marginally more subtle, you have a route to power.0 -
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/how-bush-destroyed-the-republican-party-162234/nickice said:
But will there be another Republican president in the foreseeable future? Anyone who was in any way associated with Trump is out and Silicon Valley quite openly favours Democrats. Things can only get worse from here.First.Aspect said:
You are underestimating how entrenched Rep vs. Dem is. Even now, after the worst president in their entire history, the Republican party has only just lost both houses.nickice said:One of the more damaging (though not immediately so) things about this is that this must surely lead to a Republican president not being elected for a long time or even being in the running. You only have to look at the SNP in Scotland to see the dangers of not having a decent opposition.
0 -
Disagree, I’d argue that the internet is the public square. Anybody can access it.nickice said:
My objection is not to the media not sharing Trump's tweets, it's only to what twitter is doing (I've made the argument before about social media being the new public square) and the power of social media generally. Free speech is interpreted very broadly in the USA so unless Trump is directly inciting violence I don't think he's broken any law. He's behaved irresponsibly and should be condemned but I don't think it should be up to twitter to decide the consequences or claim statements to be false.rick_chasey said:
I mean, there is a public order case in this specific instance.nickice said:I suppose you could look at it the other way round and say that any president who is regularly getting tweets deleted and banned is not fit to be president.
A news team deciding not to share Trump's statements for fear of incitement would not be seen as censorship by most normal people.
I'm not sure either way tbh.
Twitter and Facebook are establishments on that public environment and have both rights and responsibilities in regard to what happens in their establishments.
Trump can set up his own establishment if he is going to operate outside norms that an establishment wishes to permit.2 -
This, I think, ignores the reality. I understand your point but their positions are so entrenched now it wouldn't be feasible to do what you suggest.morstar said:
Disagree, I’d argue that the internet is the public square. Anybody can access it.nickice said:
My objection is not to the media not sharing Trump's tweets, it's only to what twitter is doing (I've made the argument before about social media being the new public square) and the power of social media generally. Free speech is interpreted very broadly in the USA so unless Trump is directly inciting violence I don't think he's broken any law. He's behaved irresponsibly and should be condemned but I don't think it should be up to twitter to decide the consequences or claim statements to be false.rick_chasey said:
I mean, there is a public order case in this specific instance.nickice said:I suppose you could look at it the other way round and say that any president who is regularly getting tweets deleted and banned is not fit to be president.
A news team deciding not to share Trump's statements for fear of incitement would not be seen as censorship by most normal people.
I'm not sure either way tbh.
Twitter and Facebook are establishments on that public environment and have both rights and responsibilities in regard to what happens in their establishments.
Trump can set up his own establishment if he is going to operate outside norms that an establishment wishes to permit.0 -
I'd also point out that social media tend to selectively apply their own policies.0
-
There is going to be a movement towards the likes of Twitter and Facebook having to take more responsibility for what they host. The discussions have been taking place for years but these events are only going to accelerate policy making.Dorset_Boy said:Surprised no one has picked up on the answer to the last YouGov question in Rick's post - 56% think there was enough fraud to have an impact on the result, with only 36% disagreeing. That's pretty worrying.
It will be interesting to see what happens obver the next 14 days. Trump clearly is not fit to remain in office but is anyone prepared to do anything about that?
On the twitter front, who is deciding that his tweets be deleted? Preventing retweets and marking them up for what they are is one thing, but in the near future there will need to be a discussion around who decides what should and should not remain posted, and who actually is responsible for deciding that.
And for fear of repetition, it’s not censorship, the internet is open to host your own platforms.
I do agree it’s a sensitive area though. I have a real fear for the disproportionate prevalence of fringe ideas in our current society but do support free speech. As ever a delicate balancing act to get right.
As for Trump specifically, don’t forget he himself has been very proactive in trying to restrict press scrutiny of his own actions. He is playing both sides of the argument in his usual victim way.0 -
-
"I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will."nickice said:
Examples?kingstongraham said:
He's been inciting violence for months. He's only got away with it because he's president.nickice said:
My objection is not to the media not sharing Trump's tweets, it's only to what twitter is doing (I've made the argument before about social media being the new public square) and the power of social media generally. Free speech is interpreted very broadly in the USA so unless Trump is directly inciting violence I don't think he's broken any law. He's behaved irresponsibly and should be condemned but I don't think it should be up to twitter to decide the consequences or claim statements to be false.rick_chasey said:
I mean, there is a public order case in this specific instance.nickice said:I suppose you could look at it the other way round and say that any president who is regularly getting tweets deleted and banned is not fit to be president.
A news team deciding not to share Trump's statements for fear of incitement would not be seen as censorship by most normal people.
I'm not sure either way tbh.
"Liberate Michigan"
“LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!”
He supported Kyle Rittenhouse.
He's been telling his supporters they need to be ready to defend their second amendment repeatedly. What could that mean?
Now: “walk down to the Capitol. You will never take back our country with weakness.”0 -
Yep, at risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist that (disputed?) foreign involvement 4 years ago will have been aiming to undermine confidence in the democratic system and create division rather than to just get their man elected. It has worked a treat. It's quite ironic that those most taken in by it are the ones who think of themselves as "true Patriots".orraloon said:Vlad's lads will be extra happy to see the outcome of their works, must exceed by far what they hoped to achieve with their bots and disinformation campaigns.
1 -
MattFalle said:
No. Wrong again. You don't understand this for some reason.rick_chasey said:
Yeah, that's why it is in the hands of the Reps. If they all decide to turn moderate tomorrow, they keep the extremists out.First.Aspect said:
You are underestimating how entrenched Rep vs. Dem is. Even now, after the worst president in their entire history, the Republican party has only just lost both houses.nickice said:One of the more damaging (though not immediately so) things about this is that this must surely lead to a Republican president not being elected for a long time or even being in the running. You only have to look at the SNP in Scotland to see the dangers of not having a decent opposition.
The extremists will tie themselves to the Rep party because they believe it is their party.
If the GOP decide to turn moderate the extremists wil just say that they have sold out to the deep state and that they will fight to get "their" party back.
Trump will not set up his own party because that is not how the US political scene works. There are only two parties in the US. End of.
People like Cruz will not turn their back on MAGA or Trumpism because they know they now have no other political route - they tied their colors to the Trump Rep mast and will stay there.
The extremists are 500% against the Democrats, anything socialist and anything that isn't Rep/Trump.
Its not that difficult to get Richard.
Re Cruz - worth reading the replies to his trying to disconnect himself from last night's violence: he's getting attacked from both sides, but especially from the Trumpists who accuse him of betraying 'the cause'.
It is hard to see how the Republican Party can come back together again: Trump's awoken a beast which it's going to be almost impossible to placate, but without which the party will never be electorally successful.
0 -
I think you need to start viewing social media companies as exactly that, companies. These are money making businesses, they don't have any legal requirement to be impartial just as newspapers or the likes of Fox News are often overtly biased. I share your concerns about the amount of power they have over public opinion but if Governments try to control them they'll get criticised by people for censorship. I actually think the recent stance of allowing idiots their saying but putting a big stamp over it saying "the majority of sane people think this claim is nonsense" along with removing those items that might genuinely be considered inciteful is quite a responsible approach to be fair to the likes of Twitter and Facebook.nickice said:I'd also point out that social media tend to selectively apply their own policies.
0 -
The Republicans could always try doing popular things? Then they might not always get a minority of the vote.0
