Jump to content

Trump's Twitter account locked!


sync

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Twitter, Facebook lock Trump's accounts in confrontation over Capitol breach posts - POLITICO

 

He should be banned from that platform as well as FB...My opinion FB is a big problem fommenting violence ..lies....conspiracy theories...Jack Dorsey appears to have a higher concern than Zuckerberg...I deleted my FB account 5 years ago and haven't missed it one bit...I do use Twitter to advertise my YouTube channel....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facebook and Twitter lock Trump's accounts after posting video praising rioters

 

They've deleted several of his tweets as well.

 

As far as I can tell one of the deleted ones from earlier today, after the shit hit the fan, says that he won in a "landslide election" but that "we have to have peace." He said that the people behind this fraud are "so bad and so evil." I found that deplorable. Calling people defending the truth "so evil".

 

Because I had it open on my browser - I was going to post it - I can still play the one minute video. But if I try to copy the video address and cut and paste it Twitter now says it's deleted. I presume the message is they are done with being a vehicle to spread his lies. At least lies that have been so repeatedly proven to be lies, and that have now led to violence and rioting.

 

Duckworth gave the most emotionally moving speech, talking about her own experiences with patriotism and service, during which she was holding back tears. But in the context of the day, Romney was the most moving to me. He made it personal, about how proud he is to have the privilege of serving with these women and men. Regarding the Senators and Reps themselves, I actually think one silver lining in today's cloud is it made the consequences of fascist behavior very real for every member of Congress. That said, I'm glad they are all safe and now have something to reflect on.

 

And then Romney went to the core of something very simple. Even if they did yet another audit, Romney said, it wouldn't stop Trump from lying. (The Twitter lock confirms that.) Or stop the people who did what they did today from believing the lies. Romney said the best way to show respect for those people is to tell them the truth. He got a lot of applause. I suspect from both sides of the chamber. That nailed it.

 

I can't find it uploaded anywhere yet. But Romney's speech is worth listening to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, how close is this to censorship?

 

Is all speech allowed?.....or only the speech we agree with?

 

I don’t know the answer....just pointing out the hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy is that they let this fu**nut spew lies and glorify violence for years before it came to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, how close is this to censorship?

 

Is all speech allowed?.....or only the speech we agree with?

 

I don’t know the answer....just pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

Twitter and Facebook are private companies and can censor what ever they want. It’s their playground. Just like Daddy can censor anything he chooses. Sometimes they let stuff slide even when they have rules about those things.

 

Besides, they let people post stupid unnecessary questionable shit constantly, including Trump (up until recently).

 

If Trump had the ability to strip the 230 tech protection, censorship would be even more an issue. Facebook Twitter or whomever would censor and sanitize everything to avoid lawsuits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is all speech allowed?.....or only the speech we agree with?

 

As a practical matter, the former.

 

But why be brief? You teed up a long philosophical rant. Today is a good day for such things.

 

This is a good three minute piece that I think correctly argues that just about anything goes in US politics and political advertising.

 

This is why political campaigns feel free to lie in TV ads

 

The 2020 election is a great example. From a partisan Democratic perspective, I'd argue - pun intended - Trump and Republicans got away with murder this year. Max Rose, a veteran, got shit canned for "defunding the police". Harley Rouda, a former Republican millionaire businessman, got shit canned for supporting "socialism". None of it was true. Especially relating to those individuals. But it's politics.

 

I'd rather err on the side of letting political parties lie through their teeth. Eventually the truth will out, as we are seeing today. And my read of history is that the bigger the lie, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself. To go big on examples, the holes left in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty big ones. Not to mention the shambles Germany was left in. My Dad, who fought in that war, always felt that Germany and Japan did it to themselves. Today the US got off easy, in relative terms.

 

One irony or hypocrisy is that Trump himself is the one that held the defense bill hostage to his campaign against the Communications Decency Act. Which was presumably all about how he wants to punish Facebook and Twitter for challenging his authority to lie as he pleases.

 

Here's a few other thoughts that put me outside the mainstream, in Jeremiah Wright territory. Violence begets violence. And you reap what you sow. So the score cards I carry with me, again speaking as a partisan Democrat, is how unfair it was to shit can Georgia's Sen. Max Cleland based on attacks that he was soft on terrorism. If anyone doesn't know, he was the disabled Vietnam vet and recipient of the Silver Star and Bronze Star who the W. Republicans said didn't support the war on terror adequately. That happened in 2002. I've always felt, with no proof, that scared the shit out of Senators like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. And gave them a huge political incentive to be weak, unlike Nancy Pelosi, on the Iraq War. In my moral universe, these things always work themselves out. It took from 2002 to 2020 for Georgia to elect it's next Democratic Senator. But I think both these guys are truth tellers with moral backbones. We've all heard it. The arc of the moral universe ....................

 

Speaking of Iraq, in my moral universe Jeremiah Wright wasn't making a judgment when he said "God Damn America." He was just stating a fact. The two huge moral shit shows I lived through, I feel, are the Iraq War and what's happening right now. So I feel like it all kind of works out. The US has dug a huge hole for itself. The good news is that, even before COVID-19, we don't have the military, economic, or political power to start another morally deplorable war based on a whole bunch of lies. Which is how I view the Iraq War. And even if we did, the rest of the world would tell us to go fuck ourselves, in polite terms. I don't have any problem with any of this. We dug that hole for ourselves I would say, echoing my conservative Dad. The truth always comes out. And big lies always seem to ultimately have bad consequences.

 

Here's another interesting and I think very shades of grey one, if we are talking about "truth" and political truth. Whatever that means. These Lincoln Project conservatives have all demonstrated the courage of their convictions in democracy. And one of the questions they are asked often that they kind of differ on is how the Republican Party got here. And whether they helped chart that path to hell with their less than totally honest political ads. Several of them have said that in retrospect the ads may have gone too far, and paved a way for Trumpism. Like specifically in going after Blacks or immigrants, for example.

 

I read a long interview of Stu Stevens months back. He was Romney's chief strategist in 2012. As I said above, Romney is one of my heroes of the day. In talking about the toxicity of Trumpism, Stevens was arguing how he still feels Romney would have been a very good President. And things could have been different. He was asked to give one example of how Romney would have been better than Obama. So he talked about Syria's refugees, and the political and human consequences of that crisis. To run with it, you can argue it contributed to Brexit, various forms of European fascist or authoritarian parties, more conflict in the Middle East, and of course a lot of pain and suffering and death for Syrians and refugees. The big presumption Stevens was working off of is that Obama was feckless enough. And Romney could have created some much better outcome. I might also add that but for the Iraq War, we might not have had any number of undesirable consequences that followed in a destabilized region.

 

Arguably, Romney's "47 percent" riff was one of the most honest political attacks ever. It was so effective because it just played the tape and let Romney himself speak in its own words. That said, you could also argue that it was an unfair or even untruthful attack on a smart and decent guy. Mitt is the creator of Romneycare, who pretty much is a saint compared to a prick like Trump. Which we saw again today.

 

What I found myself wondering after reading Stevens is what might have happened if Romney had won. A reasonable theory is that we would not have had Trump. I think it's reasonable to argue that when Establishment Republicans failed with Romneyism, it opened the door for Trumpism as an alternative. So you can argue what Democrats did by defeating Romney by going after his "47 percent" thing opened the door for Trump. It clearly, of course, was not what Democrats intended. I'd argue both the Iraq War and the loss of 6 million factory jobs - all of which happened under W. - is a much better explanation of what eventually paved the path for Trump. One hopeful thing to me is that most Democrats and many Republicans would now agree that both parties fucked themselves good by sitting back and calling it "creative destruction" when all those factory jobs were lost. That's what scattered the seeds of Trumpism, I think.

 

In terms of knowing what ads or what legislative actions led to what horrible outcomes, this all obviously involves a sort of omniscient political chess game that is beyond my reach. And the reach of most mere mortals, with the possible exception of King Trump. So my point in playing all this out is that I'd rather err on the side of letting Trump go and wreak whatever damage he can with his lies. Including whatever price Democrats paid in 2020 when good men like Max Rose and Harley Rouda (or Max Cleland in 2002) were taken out by attacks that were untruthful and unfair. I'd argue that Nancy Pelosi is right. Republicans won some battles (in part because they were led by women and Blacks, which was a great idea). But we now know for a certainty that they lost the war. Georgia will help solidify the message that going with Trump and his lies and hate is less than a guarantee of political success.

 

I've been mentored by US Senators, been friends with US Senators, organized with US Senators before they were anybody special, and worked with US Senators after their election. So that is partly why Romney's comments moved me today. I think they came from a deep foundation of integrity and compassion. And of course faith in democracy. So that is the big guard rail I see for democracy and truth, both for Republicans and Democrats. Given my biases, I thought Rev. Warnock stated that better than anyone today, in a PBS clip I posted elsewhere. He went after Loeffler as a rich fat cat, and she went after him as a radical who doesn't believe in America's core values. But when you elect men and women who are truthful and decent and principled, this all works out okay for the most part. So let's try hard to do more of that.

 

I personally have way more faith in American democracy than I do in Twitter or Facebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, how close is this to censorship?

 

Is all speech allowed?.....or only the speech we agree with?

 

I don’t know the answer....just pointing out the hypocrisy.

The premise of free speech being protected is intended to protect the citizenry from censorship BY the government.

Twitter and other social media operations are private businesses and can impose any rules and standards of conduct they please, just like this forum can do.

 

in the case of Trump, he has been demonstrably and undeniably inciting violence which is in itself illegal so spare us the holy indignity argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve defended his right to free speech many times and have often felt he was misinterpreted and misrepresented (sometimes intentionally). But in recent weeks (and especially yesterday), he’s crossed lines of impropriety playing to his own weaknesses with bullying responses. The only way to deal with a bully is to take the bully pulpit away. I hope he’s permanently banned from Twitter although I fear that parler or something else will become his new bully pulpit of choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is all speech allowed?.....or only the speech we agree with?

 

I don’t know the answer....just pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

I think if you classify speech in four categories, instead of two, you can make the hypocrisy go away.

 

1. True/Agree

2. True/Disagree

3. False/Agree

4. False/Disagree

 

I could see allowing categories 1 and 4 and not feel like a hypocrite. Of course, any speech that's clearly labeled an opinion would be fine.

 

Seems to me that Trump's specialties are 2 and 3, disagreeing with the truth and agreeing with falsehoods - with almost nothing labeled just an opinion - so much of his speech would be banned. And this is beginning to happen.

 

As long as the rules are clear for everyone, I see no issue with hypocrisy.

 

But that's just an opinion. http://www.boytoy.com/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve defended his right to free speech many times and have often felt he was misinterpreted and misrepresented (sometimes intentionally). But in recent weeks (and especially yesterday), he’s crossed lines of impropriety playing to his own weaknesses with bullying responses. The only way to deal with a bully is to take the bully pulpit away. I hope he’s permanently banned from Twitter although I fear that parler or something else will become his new bully pulpit of choice.

 

Demon celeb blogger was recently Permanently banned from Tik Tok and sanctioned on Facebook and Twitter for lesser offenses than Potus is guilty of.... Free speech yes, but to what end ?

 

There must be guide rails....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Demon celeb blogger was recently Permanently banned from Tik Tok and sanctioned on Facebook and Twitter for lesser offenses than Potus is guilty of.... Free speech yes, but to what end ?

 

There must be guide rails....

Every freedom should be guarded by each individual knowing that freedom can be taken away when abused. Too far is too far

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.


×
×
  • Create New...