Donald Trump

rick_chasey

I mean, apart from admitting the obvious weakening of the hand by Brexit (“needed a deal”), I don’t see many clamours for sucking up to Xi.

Sucking up to Trump was counter productive as a) he never had any interest in a mutually beneficial deal and any cursory research on him would have shown b) his America first policy precluded that, c) Trump is a fascist hence all the Tories having a sudden change of heart and d) by doing so they royally cheesed off the Democrats who *do* have an interest in mutual cooperation.

It was poor short term tactics, spurred by the PM’s “admiration” for the wannabe dictator, which lacked any strategic consideration, and highlighted to the world the strategic weakness Brexit put the U.K. in.

There is also a moral case about not praising obvious authoritarian types.

morstar

morstar said:

Jezyboy said:

I'm not sure Twitter has any obligation to follow the precident they set for themselves though?

It's an interesting moment, shows politicians probably still have to keep some ties with traditional media, and shows that Twitter won't stand for being a complete free for all, no matter how big a draw you are.

I agree it’s not legally enforceable or anything they’ve committed to.

However, it will get referenced at later points when legislation is debated or a court case comes to bear and so on. The decisions made this week will be used as benchmarks for all sorts of discussion.

They could potentially become a de facto standard for defining the boundaries of social media companies responsibility.

The debate around free speech is perpetual and this is no different. But the social media companies have now established a line. Neither side will forget that and it is significant due to its high profile.

As I said yesterday morning...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

Precedent set, the debate about what law applies to social media has changed following the last weeks actions.

john80

I don't think twitter takes an editorial decision if it takes people off for consistently posting false information. Even with the highest of thresholds trump should have been barred years ago. The quantity of easily disprovable claims is the real problem with social media. If the flick is for breaching rules such as not inciting riots then is this really an editorial decision. In my view it is breaching terms of use.

rick_chasey

morstar said:

morstar said:

Jezyboy said:

I'm not sure Twitter has any obligation to follow the precident they set for themselves though?

It's an interesting moment, shows politicians probably still have to keep some ties with traditional media, and shows that Twitter won't stand for being a complete free for all, no matter how big a draw you are.

I agree it’s not legally enforceable or anything they’ve committed to.

However, it will get referenced at later points when legislation is debated or a court case comes to bear and so on. The decisions made this week will be used as benchmarks for all sorts of discussion.

They could potentially become a de facto standard for defining the boundaries of social media companies responsibility.

The debate around free speech is perpetual and this is no different. But the social media companies have now established a line. Neither side will forget that and it is significant due to its high profile.

As I said yesterday morning...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

Precedent set, the debate about what law applies to social media has changed following the last weeks actions.

The towering intellect of Matt Hancock jfc

morstar

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

morstar said:

Jezyboy said:

I'm not sure Twitter has any obligation to follow the precident they set for themselves though?

It's an interesting moment, shows politicians probably still have to keep some ties with traditional media, and shows that Twitter won't stand for being a complete free for all, no matter how big a draw you are.

I agree it’s not legally enforceable or anything they’ve committed to.

However, it will get referenced at later points when legislation is debated or a court case comes to bear and so on. The decisions made this week will be used as benchmarks for all sorts of discussion.

They could potentially become a de facto standard for defining the boundaries of social media companies responsibility.

The debate around free speech is perpetual and this is no different. But the social media companies have now established a line. Neither side will forget that and it is significant due to its high profile.

As I said yesterday morning...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

Precedent set, the debate about what law applies to social media has changed following the last weeks actions.

The towering intellect of Matt Hancock jfc

So that automatically makes it wrong does it?

And again a lol, a meh or a jfc. Have you ever tried not being such a smart arse with every response?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

I mean, apart from admitting the obvious weakening of the hand by Brexit (“needed a deal”), I don’t see many clamours for sucking up to Xi.

Sucking up to Trump was counter productive as a) he never had any interest in a mutually beneficial deal and any cursory research on him would have shown b) his America first policy precluded that, c) Trump is a fascist hence all the Tories having a sudden change of heart and d) by doing so they royally cheesed off the Democrats who *do* have an interest in mutual cooperation.

It was poor short term tactics, spurred by the PM’s “admiration” for the wannabe dictator, which lacked any strategic consideration, and highlighted to the world the strategic weakness Brexit put the U.K. in.

There is also a moral case about not praising obvious authoritarian types.

I like the way you make assumptions about sucking up as if they were fact rather than opinion.

As John said, I think we struck a reasonable balance bearing in mind the US is a long term partner and ally which just happened to have the misfortune to have a 1 term odious idiot for a president. And they're moving on from that very shortly.

Given what you said above about Xi, what are your views on the EU-China investment deal?

kingstongraham

john80 said:

I don't think twitter takes an editorial decision if it takes people off for consistently posting false information. Even with the highest of thresholds trump should have been barred years ago. The quantity of easily disprovable claims is the real problem with social media. If the flick is for breaching rules such as not inciting riots then is this really an editorial decision. In my view it is breaching terms of use.

What is your opinion of this still being there?

https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784?s=19

I think they are making editorial decisions, and they should be doing more. They should be kicking off anyone who is consistently abusive and threatening.

ddraver

rick_chasey said:

I mean, apart from admitting the obvious weakening of the hand by Brexit (“needed a deal”), I don’t see many clamours for sucking up to Xi.

Sucking up to Trump was counter productive as a) he never had any interest in a mutually beneficial deal and any cursory research on him would have shown b) his America first policy precluded that, c) Trump is a fascist hence all the Tories having a sudden change of heart and d) by doing so they royally cheesed off the Democrats who *do* have an interest in mutual cooperation.

It was poor short term tactics, spurred by the PM’s “admiration” for the wannabe dictator, which lacked any strategic consideration, and highlighted to the world the strategic weakness Brexit put the U.K. in.

There is also a moral case about not praising obvious authoritarian types.

This...

Plus, regarding the military, Sis raver has started dating a marine who has spent a bit of time over there playing with all the toys the US Military have. He is hardly a whinging lefty (I suspect he has never thought anything about his political leanings) but apparently, the Royals find the one-track mind, USA! USA! Gung Ho! attitude quite difficult when they re over there (not the exact words he used). Plus as we well know the US military is full of people who had few other options in life. I don't think it's surprising that they attract people who are easily tempted by conspiracies, forums and demagogues...

kingstonian

Friend of mine was a tank commander in the first Gulf War. What he was most frightened of was having American tanks or planes near to him because he felt their “shoot first ask questions later” attitude to their job put him and the other 7 tanks he was in charge of in much higher danger than what the enemy was providing. And sadly this was borne out when an American plane shot up a British tank despite all the signage etc indicating what he was shooting at.

pangolin

Is this a reasonable balance?



I guess if your party can do no wrong, whatever they do must be right.

rjsterry

pangolin said:

Is this a reasonable balance?



I guess if your party can do no wrong, whatever they do must be right.

😁 Wasn't that when people were still writing articles suggesting he would calm down once he had settled into the role.

focuszing723

I would have loved to have seen how Thatcher dealt with Trump. I think she would have played the part at the start, but I'm sure the Iron Lady would have made and appearance.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Is this a reasonable balance?



I guess if your party can do no wrong, whatever they do must be right.

😁 Wasn't that when people were still writing articles suggesting he would calm down once he had settled into the role.

The telegraph had some fairly dodgy takes in the “premium” section I believe.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Is this a reasonable balance?



I guess if your party can do no wrong, whatever they do must be right.

Overall I think we did.

I did suspect someone would pull that pic out for smartarse points to 'prove' that our overall strategy was wrong

MattFalle

focuszing723 said:

I would have loved to have seen how Thatcher dealt with Trump. I think she would have played the part at the start, but I'm sure the Iron Lady would have made and appearance.

Bolllorx. She would have sold everything Britain had to him the vile evil creature and then laughed about it.

ddraver

Aware that I'm going to import the "Can't compare other countries even though they re the same as us" from the Coronavirus Thread but Merkel and Macron took a much firmer strategy then the UK and I'm struggling to see what they lost in comparison.

It's rumoured that they got a phone call off of Biden a lot quicker than Johnson...

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

john80 said:

I am really intrigued by those in the military being aligned to trump. He has demonstrated the utmost contempt for them and their culture his entire life. He literally could not be more transparent.

Think tailwind said it; they’ve been radicalised online.

You’re wrong again. This is now tiring. Read the posts above. This is not that difficult - seriously, it’s not that difficult

#blimey,isRichardforreal?

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Is this a reasonable balance?



I guess if your party can do no wrong, whatever they do must be right.

Overall I think we did.

I did suspect someone would pull that pic out for smartarse points to 'prove' that our overall strategy was wrong

You're right of course, that is the 1 photo that exists of UK politicians looking a bit too chummy with Trump. And you "knew" someone would post it, which naturally makes it irrelevant.

Or perhaps "if your party can do no wrong, whatever they do must be right."

(Insert random smileys as required)

Stevo_666

kingstonian said:

Friend of mine was a tank commander in the first Gulf War. What he was most frightened of was having American tanks or planes near to him because he felt their “shoot first ask questions later” attitude to their job put him and the other 7 tanks he was in charge of in much higher danger than what the enemy was providing. And sadly this was borne out when an American plane shot up a British tank despite all the signage etc indicating what he was shooting at.

I'm sure they do have failings but think to be honest we have been pretty glad of US military support in the past.

Perhaps best illustrated when De Gaulle pulled out of NATO and in 1966 asked that all US troops were removed from French soil. US secretary of state Dean Rusk (instructed by President Lyndon Johnson) asked De Gaulle if that included the 60,000 or so that were buried there...

kingstonian

Stevo_666 said:

kingstonian said:

Friend of mine was a tank commander in the first Gulf War. What he was most frightened of was having American tanks or planes near to him because he felt their “shoot first ask questions later” attitude to their job put him and the other 7 tanks he was in charge of in much higher danger than what the enemy was providing. And sadly this was borne out when an American plane shot up a British tank despite all the signage etc indicating what he was shooting at.

I'm sure they do have failings but think to be honest we have been pretty glad of US military support in the past.

Perhaps best illustrated when De Gaulle pulled out of NATO and in 1966 asked that all US troops were removed from French soil. US secretary of state Dean Rusk (instructed by President Lyndon Johnson) asked De Gaulle if that included the 60,000 or so that were buried there...

Hadn’t heard that story before.

Stevo_666

kingstonian said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstonian said:

Friend of mine was a tank commander in the first Gulf War. What he was most frightened of was having American tanks or planes near to him because he felt their “shoot first ask questions later” attitude to their job put him and the other 7 tanks he was in charge of in much higher danger than what the enemy was providing. And sadly this was borne out when an American plane shot up a British tank despite all the signage etc indicating what he was shooting at.

I'm sure they do have failings but think to be honest we have been pretty glad of US military support in the past.

Perhaps best illustrated when De Gaulle pulled out of NATO and in 1966 asked that all US troops were removed from French soil. US secretary of state Dean Rusk (instructed by President Lyndon Johnson) asked De Gaulle if that included the 60,000 or so that were buried there...

Hadn’t heard that story before.

Can't recall when I first heard it a long time ago, but here's my source:
https://goodreads.com/quotes/375563-ask-him-about-the-cemeteries-dean-in-1966-upon-being

Quite amusing really

focuszing723

Stevo_666 said:

kingstonian said:

Friend of mine was a tank commander in the first Gulf War. What he was most frightened of was having American tanks or planes near to him because he felt their “shoot first ask questions later” attitude to their job put him and the other 7 tanks he was in charge of in much higher danger than what the enemy was providing. And sadly this was borne out when an American plane shot up a British tank despite all the signage etc indicating what he was shooting at.

I'm sure they do have failings but think to be honest we have been pretty glad of US military support in the past.

Perhaps best illustrated when De Gaulle pulled out of NATO and in 1966 asked that all US troops were removed from French soil. US secretary of state Dean Rusk (instructed by President Lyndon Johnson) asked De Gaulle if that included the 60,000 or so that were buried there...

In 1966 upon being told that President Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson mentioned to Secretary of State Dean Rusk that he should ask DeGaulle about the Americans buried in France. Dean implied in his answer that that DeGaulle should not really be asked that in the meeting at which point President Johnson then told Secretary of State Dean Rusk:

"Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!"

That made it into a Presidential Order so he had to ask President DeGaulle.

So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldiers buried in France from World War I and World War II.

DeGaulle, embarrassed, got up and left and never answered.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/375563-ask-him-about-the-cemeteries-dean-in-1966-upon-being

Damn that's a good retort.

kingstongraham

elbowloh

kingstongraham said:

He's got great judgement that fella.

kingstongraham

Both of these tweets are true

https://twitter.com/MattZeitlin/status/1348307984699576322?s=19

https://twitter.com/MattZeitlin/status/1348310286281924614?s=19

john80

kingstongraham said:

john80 said:

I don't think twitter takes an editorial decision if it takes people off for consistently posting false information. Even with the highest of thresholds trump should have been barred years ago. The quantity of easily disprovable claims is the real problem with social media. If the flick is for breaching rules such as not inciting riots then is this really an editorial decision. In my view it is breaching terms of use.

What is your opinion of this still being there?

https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784?s=19

I think they are making editorial decisions, and they should be doing more. They should be kicking off anyone who is consistently abusive and threatening.

You got me. Twitter is full of mad uns. Its a difficult and somewhat impossible job. Imagine being the editor of a paper where you have everyone in the world write things they came up with and you have to review it as if it was from a journalist and decide whether or not to publish it.

briantrumpet

Haha. What a snowflake....

https://twitter.com/NYinLA2121/status/1348400870153707526

elbowloh

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

john80 said:

I don't think twitter takes an editorial decision if it takes people off for consistently posting false information. Even with the highest of thresholds trump should have been barred years ago. The quantity of easily disprovable claims is the real problem with social media. If the flick is for breaching rules such as not inciting riots then is this really an editorial decision. In my view it is breaching terms of use.

What is your opinion of this still being there?

https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784?s=19

I think they are making editorial decisions, and they should be doing more. They should be kicking off anyone who is consistently abusive and threatening.

You got me. Twitter is full of mad uns. Its a difficult and somewhat impossible job. Imagine being the editor of a paper where you have everyone in the world write things they came up with and you have to review it as if it was from a journalist and decide whether or not to publish it.

Editor's actively seek what people on twitter have said.

The amount of times you read/watch a news story and they include a section on what people have said about it on twitter, often just ransoms not even relevant to the story.

Stop! I don't care what their reaction is. It's not news!

kingstongraham

https://twitter.com/DeathStarPR/status/1348476678880706561?s=19

rick_chasey

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/capitol-riot-senior-trump-official-calls-him-a-fascist.html

This essay on the matter is excellent.