Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
timebomb26 said:
I mean, putting absolutely everything aside for a minute, and then just reading those tweets above. Is he behaving in a way that is fitting of the President of the United States?

Silly word plays and (elementary school level) name calling would strongly suggest not. This is supposed to be the leader of the free world.

I still sometimes can’t believe this timeline we’re on.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately a lot of Americans now seem to think all this behaviour is all normal and acceptable.

Everything is changing now. Crazy times.
 
timebomb26 said:
I mean, putting absolutely everything aside for a minute, and then just reading those tweets above. Is he behaving in a way that is fitting of the President of the United States?

Silly word plays and (elementary school level) name calling would strongly suggest not. This is supposed to be the leader of the free world.

I still sometimes can’t believe this timeline we’re on.
Click to expand...
His supporters are worse. They're the ones that are feeding his ego despite the avalanche of **** he spouts every day.
 
timmeh said:
Do people actually believe that twitter is stifling free speech?
Click to expand...

Define free speech.

Is it:

1> All speech is protected.

or:

2> We will police what you can say on our platform because our T&C's overrule your constitutional protections and we prefer to promote the values of authoritarian China around the world rather than the US.

Because no. 2 is not free speech and is in opposition to the 1st amendment protection which was the 1st amendment because sharing (sometimes controversial) ideas is important in any free society. By all means add a filter for children if they don't want some things to be seen by immature and sensitive people but unless something is criminal then deleting it on their platform is stifling free speech and if it is criminal then why delete the evidence of a crime?
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
Define free speech.

Is it:

1> All speech is protected.

or:

2> We will police what you can say on our platform because our T&C's overrule your constitutional protections and we prefer to be like China rather than the US.

Because no. 2 is not free speech and is in opposition to the 1st amendment protection which was the 1st amendment because sharing (sometimes controversial) ideas is important in any free society. By all means add a filter for children if they don't want some things to be seen by immature people but unless something is criminal then deleting it on their platform is stifling free speech and if it is criminal then why delete the evidence of a crime?
Click to expand...

It's neither, which is why you struggle with a lot of concepts. There's not always a binary choice between the 2 extremes you like to make up in your head.
 
mmj_uk said:
Define free speech.

Is it:

1> All speech is protected.

or:

2> We will police what you can say on our platform because our T&C's overrule your constitutional protections and we prefer to be like China rather than the US.

Because no. 2 is not free speech and is in opposition to the 1st amendment protection which was the 1st amendment because sharing (sometimes controversial) ideas is important in any free society. By all means add a filter for children if they don't want some things to be seen by immature people but unless something is criminal then deleting it on their platform is stifling free speech and if it is criminal then why delete the evidence of a crime?
Click to expand...
Free speech is one thing. But when you are openly lying and spreading false CTs then media outlets certainly have the right to let people know this. Social media platforms have been doing a lot recently to stop fake news stories.
 
Freakbro said:
No one said it wold be easy, and it's implicit any fundamental reforms are difficult, I'm just querying why people seem to laugh off the principle and wouldn't want to even try and work towards such a outcome?
Click to expand...

Probably because all of recorded history in every part of the world indicates that it's impossible and counter-productive. It might look OK on the surface, but it's impossible to implement without making the problems worse rather than better.

What constitutes a lie? More specifically, who decides what constitutes a lie? Under your suggested system, whoever gets to make that decision can dismiss an elected politician by their own decree. Would it be a person? They would be very close to being a dictator. A committee? It would be like the House Un-American Committee during the McCarthyite period. Polls on "social" media? Very contempory, but probably even worse.

I'm not being flippant. Politics isn't always about things that are objectively true or false and known to be so at the time of speaking. Then, of course, there's bias. To some people everything Trump says is a lie, whatever it is. To some people everything Trump says is true, whatever it is.

I see your idea in much the same way I see communism - sounds like a good idea in theory but trying to implement it will make things worse.
 
mmj_uk said:
Define free speech.

Is it:

1> All speech is protected.

or:

2> We will police what you can say on our platform because our T&C's overrule your constitutional protections and we prefer to promote the values of authoritarian China around the world rather than the US.

Because no. 2 is not free speech and is in opposition to the 1st amendment protection which was the 1st amendment because sharing (sometimes controversial) ideas is important in any free society. By all means add a filter for children if they don't want some things to be seen by immature and sensitive people but unless something is criminal then deleting it on their platform is stifling free speech and if it is criminal then why delete the evidence of a crime?
Click to expand...

The 1st amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

Now tell me where private companies are infringing on the 1st amendment? I'll give you a hint, they aren't.

Even if they were, which they aren't, he is still allowed to say what he wants, its just that private company has added a fact check. IMO they should do this to all politicians, all their speech should be fact checked and where they are found to be lying it should be stated so.

Do you know what would be illegal under the 1st Amendment? If Trump tried to shut down a company like Twitter.
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
Define free speech.

Is it:

1> All speech is protected.

or:

2> We will police what you can say on our platform because our T&C's overrule your constitutional protections and we prefer to promote the values of authoritarian China around the world rather than the US.
Click to expand...
Or 3, you're free to say whatever you like as long as you realise that comes with responsibilities, responsibilities set out in laws that you agree to by continuing to live in the society that set them.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute, you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater without understanding that if there's not a fire there may well be consequences to your action, you can't encourage others to commit crimes or break laws, you can't for instance tell everyone that they should march on the WH with their guns and kill the POTUS.
steve5424 said:
So you posted a link?

Would be helpful to know what it is and why I should read it and what your point is.

Leaving a link with no explanation is not helpful in anyway. It could be the map to the holy trail and I still wouldn't know as you didn't say what I should be looking at.
Click to expand...
The comical part is he linked to a PDF published by a lobbing group (drain that swamp) that starts out by saying 1,071 cases of voter fraud in the space of, from what i can tell, something like 30 years. Not exactly what you'd call wide spread voter fraud when you consider we're talking about a country with a population of 300 million odd people.
 
Last edited:
There's a lot of isolated cases where individuals somehow ended up voting twice.

Some claimed to be under stress at the time, though some of them would seem to be lying about that as they were convicted.

But, yes, the scale of it is miniscule in the evidence cited as being justification for Trump claiming widespread systematic fraud.

Edit: plus the fact they were often caught by very simple analysis of 2 different lists of people tells you that the current system isn't actually that open as people have been caught.

It also tells you that it shouldn't be too difficult to tighten up inter state voting registers with some simple checks before, rather than after, the event.
 
mmj_uk said:
Define free speech.

Is it:

1> All speech is protected.

or:

2> We will police what you can say on our platform because our T&C's overrule your constitutional protections and we prefer to promote the values of authoritarian China around the world rather than the US.

Because no. 2 is not free speech and is in opposition to the 1st amendment protection which was the 1st amendment because sharing (sometimes controversial) ideas is important in any free society. By all means add a filter for children if they don't want some things to be seen by immature and sensitive people but unless something is criminal then deleting it on their platform is stifling free speech and if it is criminal then why delete the evidence of a crime?
Click to expand...

so what you're saying is that Twitter ISN'T free to freely speak on their own platform. They can't freely critique something someone has said that is still showing? this sure reminds me of the authoritarian China. Companies having to do as the leader tells them, and them not being able to freely critique the leader.
 
mmj_uk said:
Define free speech.

Is it:

1> All speech is protected.

or:

2> We will police what you can say on our platform because our T&C's overrule your constitutional protections and we prefer to promote the values of authoritarian China around the world rather than the US.

Because no. 2 is not free speech and is in opposition to the 1st amendment protection which was the 1st amendment because sharing (sometimes controversial) ideas is important in any free society. By all means add a filter for children if they don't want some things to be seen by immature and sensitive people but unless something is criminal then deleting it on their platform is stifling free speech and if it is criminal then why delete the evidence of a crime?
Click to expand...

You are missing the most basic of points, Twitter haven’t removed his lies all they did was state it’s a lie.

Free speech remains intact but be prepared to be challenged if you publish falsehoods
 
Except stating that mail in ballots increase voter fraud is not a falsehood. Democrats most certainly do it, Republicans also do it...
 
tang0 said:
Except stating that mail in ballots increase voter fraud is not a falsehood. Democrats most certainly do it, Republicans also do it...
Click to expand...

When you say" mail in ballots increase voter fraud" what you are casually omitting is that the percentage is minuscule and therefore not a cause for any concern.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom