Honestly we have had Trump begging people to stage a coup on his behalf for months. Now you are debating whether it had anything to do with him? Where have you been?
The old "people are being mean to fascists and it will backfire on them" act is beyond old now.
Exactly. And thus ends social media, and Free Speech, as we knew it, which once was a sacred western gift to humanity, mainly because it was so stoutly defended by the world's once-most-important power, the USA
Free speech is entirely possible without an active Twitter account. You're making an arse of yourself tonight, little chum.
Twitter has helpfully told Trump supporters how they should interpret his last few tweets. twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1347688467925495809
That is a massive over-stretch of those two tweets.
Indeed. That's crazy. Trump has written much more "incendiary" tweets than this. And he is still the rightfully elected president of the USA. They are making him a silenced martyr, which is much more dangerous than a loser with dementia
Bonkers.
The question of what duties, if any, a social media platform has is not yet clear. Are they like the BBC, required to give some airtime to any legal opinion? Or more like a pubkeeper, who can exclude people on a whim? Given that there are plenty of platforms, I think they're entitled to pick and choose, like a newspaper - the Daily Express probably won't publish a political article by me, but I don't see that as censorship.
Tonight there is clearly a mass exodus of the right, especially the US right from Twitter to Parler.
The US right and left now no longer not only tend to live in different states and the right mainly in rural areas and the left mainly in urban areas, they may now no longer even share the same social media platforms
If we pulled the plug on the entire public internet, would we miss it (after a year or so of cold turkey)?
The Amazon catalogue might be a bit heavy, but hey.
Twitter has helpfully told Trump supporters how they should interpret his last few tweets. twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1347688467925495809
That is a massive over-stretch of those two tweets.
Indeed. That's crazy. Trump has written much more "incendiary" tweets than this. And he is still the rightfully elected president of the USA. They are making him a silenced martyr, which is much more dangerous than a loser with dementia
Bonkers.
The question of what duties, if any, a social media platform has is not yet clear. Are they like the BBC, required to give some airtime to any legal opinion? Or more like a pubkeeper, who can exclude people on a whim? Given that there are plenty of platforms, I think they're entitled to pick and choose, like a newspaper - the Daily Express probably won't publish a political article by me, but I don't see that as censorship.
The whole legal protection around social media platforms and why they can't be sued is the idea that they are merely platforms, and so not responsible for editorial content. It's why, for so many years, companies like Facebook and Twitter - which essentially are media companies given they get most of their revenues from advertising - have clung to the premise they are tech companies, not media ones. It meant they could escape the burdens of being covered by the regulatory environment that covers media companies.
The moment you start treating content like a newspaper i.e. deciding what gets published, then you are effectively a media company and should be regulated as such.
The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me , AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way shape or form.
Think that might have done it !
How about the 81,000,000 who voted for Biden?
25 states voted for Trump, 25 states + DC voted for Biden.
Yes Biden won but that is a recipe for a split nation
Again. Was that the case over the past 4 years? Or has "healing" suddenly become super important?
The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me , AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way shape or form.
Think that might have done it !
How about the 81,000,000 who voted for Biden?
25 states voted for Trump, 25 states + DC voted for Biden.
Yes Biden won but that is a recipe for a split nation
Again. Was that the case over the past 4 years? Or has "healing" suddenly become super important?
Yes. "Healing" has become super important, in the most powerful country on earth (albeit in swift decline), and the guarantor-nation of western freedom. A riven, divided, civil-warring America is in the interest of no one in the West, especially as China, now exposed as an almost entirely malignant power, smoothly ascends, so as to take over.
America under Trump, however awful, is still preferable as top dog nation to China under Xi. And remember, Trump leaves in 12 days.
China is going to be top job regardless, the US alone is not enough to contain it without the support of India, Japan, Australia and ourselves
Twitter has helpfully told Trump supporters how they should interpret his last few tweets. twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1347688467925495809
That is a massive over-stretch of those two tweets.
Indeed. That's crazy. Trump has written much more "incendiary" tweets than this. And he is still the rightfully elected president of the USA. They are making him a silenced martyr, which is much more dangerous than a loser with dementia
Bonkers.
The question of what duties, if any, a social media platform has is not yet clear. Are they like the BBC, required to give some airtime to any legal opinion? Or more like a pubkeeper, who can exclude people on a whim? Given that there are plenty of platforms, I think they're entitled to pick and choose, like a newspaper - the Daily Express probably won't publish a political article by me, but I don't see that as censorship.
The whole legal protection around social media platforms and why they can't be sued is the idea that they are merely platforms, and so not responsible for editorial content. It's why, for so many years, companies like Facebook and Twitter - which essentially are media companies given they get most of their revenues from advertising - have clung to the premise they are tech companies, not media ones. It meant they could escape the burdens of being covered by the regulatory environment that covers media companies.
The moment you start treating content like a newspaper i.e. deciding what gets published, then you are effectively a media company and should be regulated as such.
Yes, I see what you mean. Perhaps you're right. But does the previous position imply that they must publish anything, including ISIS calls for terrorism, or child porn, say? My understanding has always been that they are expected to draw the line at illegal content, in which case the issue is purely whether Trump's recvent tweets amounted to that. I will admit to a certain cynicism about their doing it when he's on his way out.
I think it is entirely unsurprising that someone responsible for attempting a coup might be banned from a mass communication platform that wants to preserve its good reputation.
Compared to what Trump might try to do in the few days left of his Presidency it is nothing.
Want to stay on Twitter? Don't launch a coup.
What about murder 'disappearing' people and genocide?
Twitter has helpfully told Trump supporters how they should interpret his last few tweets. twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1347688467925495809
That is a massive over-stretch of those two tweets.
Indeed. That's crazy. Trump has written much more "incendiary" tweets than this. And he is still the rightfully elected president of the USA. They are making him a silenced martyr, which is much more dangerous than a loser with dementia
Bonkers.
The question of what duties, if any, a social media platform has is not yet clear. Are they like the BBC, required to give some airtime to any legal opinion? Or more like a pubkeeper, who can exclude people on a whim? Given that there are plenty of platforms, I think they're entitled to pick and choose, like a newspaper - the Daily Express probably won't publish a political article by me, but I don't see that as censorship.
"Censorship" is one of the most overused words by the brittle hearts on the right. A twitter ban is not censorship.
If you went into McDonalds and started screaming abuse at the staff, and they kick you out, that's not them starving you, that's just them telling you to do one because you're not welcome any more. Twitter is no different.
Tonight there is clearly a mass exodus of the right, especially the US right from Twitter to Parler.
The US right and left now no longer not only tend to live in different states and the right mainly in rural areas and the left mainly in urban areas, they may now no longer even share the same social media platforms
If we pulled the plug on the entire public internet, would we miss it (after a year or so of cold turkey)?
The Amazon catalogue might be a bit heavy, but hey.
I think it is entirely unsurprising that someone responsible for attempting a coup might be banned from a mass communication platform that wants to preserve its good reputation.
Compared to what Trump might try to do in the few days left of his Presidency it is nothing.
Want to stay on Twitter? Don't launch a coup.
What about murder 'disappearing' people and genocide?
I think it is entirely unsurprising that someone responsible for attempting a coup might be banned from a mass communication platform that wants to preserve its good reputation.
Compared to what Trump might try to do in the few days left of his Presidency it is nothing.
Want to stay on Twitter? Don't launch a coup.
We have no conclusive evidence that Trump was attempting a coup. That is all media supposition and, indeed, I reckon, wishful thinking in some parts.
I have read the theories, the roiled crowd marches down the Avenue, the Senate is suspended (or whatever), the election is re-assessed, and so he stays in office.
These theories are plausible, but no more than that. Everything Trump has done is also in accord with a more reasonable hypothesis: that he is a pathetic narcissist that couldn't face public defeat, so he wanted to go out with a show of power: get his people to march on the Capitol, kick off a few scuffles, a firework or two, he feels defended, he bows out having shown he is still a force in American politics (however evil), his frail masculine pride is sustained.
That seems a more likely story. Therefore this banning and accompanying shite is all stupidly overdone and premature. Mockery is much more effective than censorship.
I'm sorry, but your assessment is way off base re: the POTUS inciting a mob to attack the US Capitol to prevent Congress from fulfilling one of its MOST important duties under the Constitution.
You seem to think there is a mass constituency in America for this horseshit. You are wrong.
I think it is entirely unsurprising that someone responsible for attempting a coup might be banned from a mass communication platform that wants to preserve its good reputation.
Compared to what Trump might try to do in the few days left of his Presidency it is nothing.
Want to stay on Twitter? Don't launch a coup.
We have no conclusive evidence that Trump was attempting a coup. That is all media supposition and, indeed, I reckon, wishful thinking in some parts.
I have read the theories, the roiled crowd marches down the Avenue, the Senate is suspended (or whatever), the election is re-assessed, and so he stays in office.
These theories are plausible, but no more than that. Everything Trump has done is also in accord with a more reasonable hypothesis: that he is a pathetic narcissist that couldn't face public defeat, so he wanted to go out with a show of power: get his people to march on the Capitol, kick off a few scuffles, a firework or two, he feels defended, he bows out having shown he is still a force in American politics (however evil), his frail masculine pride is sustained.
That seems a more likely story. Therefore this banning and accompanying shite is all stupidly overdone and premature. Mockery is much more effective than censorship.
I agree the “protest going out of control” theory is likely but his failure to immediately condemn the violence or deploy the National Guard is what has made his behaviour appear seditious.
Yes, but appearing to be seditious, is not sedition. I am obviously not defending the people who actually invaded the Capitol. And, I say again, I believe Trump is a dangerous moron whose departure from western politics cannot come soon enough. He is menacing us all. It's just a question of removing him legally, and safely, and in a way which preserves what we love about being free-speaking westerners, and which does not plunge America into greater civil strife
In my opinion, if anyone was inciting sedition, it was Rudy Giuliani, His Penn Ave speech saying "let there be trial by combat" does seem, to me, to get very close to inciting treasonous violence.
How sad. He was an heroic mayor of NYC. Reduced to this.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
William Glenn is right and you are wrong. The main legal protection for the tech platforms is they are not media companies because they don't edit content. That defence has been blown away.
Twitter has helpfully told Trump supporters how they should interpret his last few tweets. twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1347688467925495809
That is a massive over-stretch of those two tweets.
Indeed. That's crazy. Trump has written much more "incendiary" tweets than this. And he is still the rightfully elected president of the USA. They are making him a silenced martyr, which is much more dangerous than a loser with dementia
Bonkers.
The question of what duties, if any, a social media platform has is not yet clear. Are they like the BBC, required to give some airtime to any legal opinion? Or more like a pubkeeper, who can exclude people on a whim? Given that there are plenty of platforms, I think they're entitled to pick and choose, like a newspaper - the Daily Express probably won't publish a political article by me, but I don't see that as censorship.
Companies like Facebook, Google and Twiiter are far more powerful than any British newspaper - or indeed any newspaper anywhere - or indeed any media company anywhere - have ever been. Their influence and decisions are globally significant, to a dangerous extent.
It is time they were reined in, and their monopolies broken up.
Tonight there is clearly a mass exodus of the right, especially the US right from Twitter to Parler.
The US right and left now no longer not only tend to live in different states and the right mainly in rural areas and the left mainly in urban areas, they may now no longer even share the same social media platforms
If we pulled the plug on the entire public internet, would we miss it (after a year or so of cold turkey)?
The Amazon catalogue might be a bit heavy, but hey.
I suppose radio hams might make a comeback...
Is a radio ham something like a microwave meal?
Probably a bit too much lead contamination to be good eating.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
Sorry, but you are giving FAR too much credence to & focus upon the hard-core Putinists within the Republican Party. Because their Fearless Leader has pulled the rug out from under them.
Far from increasing, their influence is DECREASING, hour by hour. Because real Americans - Republicans, Democrats, Independents - will NOT forget their attempted putsch. NEVER.
I think it is entirely unsurprising that someone responsible for attempting a coup might be banned from a mass communication platform that wants to preserve its good reputation.
Compared to what Trump might try to do in the few days left of his Presidency it is nothing.
Want to stay on Twitter? Don't launch a coup.
We have no conclusive evidence that Trump was attempting a coup. That is all media supposition and, indeed, I reckon, wishful thinking in some parts.
I have read the theories, the roiled crowd marches down the Avenue, the Senate is suspended (or whatever), the election is re-assessed, and so he stays in office.
These theories are plausible, but no more than that. Everything Trump has done is also in accord with a more reasonable hypothesis: that he is a pathetic narcissist that couldn't face public defeat, so he wanted to go out with a show of power: get his people to march on the Capitol, kick off a few scuffles, a firework or two, he feels defended, he bows out having shown he is still a force in American politics (however evil), his frail masculine pride is sustained.
That seems a more likely story. Therefore this banning and accompanying shite is all stupidly overdone and premature. Mockery is much more effective than censorship.
I'm , but your assessment is way off base re: the POTUS inciting a mob to attack the US Capitol to prevent Congress from fulfilling one of its MOST important duties under the Constitution.
You seem to think there is a mass constituency in America for this horseshit. You are wrong.
The polling implies I am right, Most Americans want the morons who attacked the Capitol arrested. Rightly. They do not believe this was an organised and attempted coup.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
When people look back from the future on January 2021, BLM comments will not figure into anything at all. Not even a footnote.
The insurrection at the Capitol will.
Your desperate search for a counter-narrative is probably doomed; it takes a special kind of weird to anything that has happened anywhere in the world so far this month will even partially eclipse what the Trump mob did.
Twitter has helpfully told Trump supporters how they should interpret his last few tweets. twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1347688467925495809
That is a massive over-stretch of those two tweets.
Indeed. That's crazy. Trump has written much more "incendiary" tweets than this. And he is still the rightfully elected president of the USA. They are making him a silenced martyr, which is much more dangerous than a loser with dementia
Bonkers.
The question of what duties, if any, a social media platform has is not yet clear. Are they like the BBC, required to give some airtime to any legal opinion? Or more like a pubkeeper, who can exclude people on a whim? Given that there are plenty of platforms, I think they're entitled to pick and choose, like a newspaper - the Daily Express probably won't publish a political article by me, but I don't see that as censorship.
The whole legal protection around social media platforms and why they can't be sued is the idea that they are merely platforms, and so not responsible for editorial content. It's why, for so many years, companies like Facebook and Twitter - which essentially are media companies given they get most of their revenues from advertising - have clung to the premise they are tech companies, not media ones. It meant they could escape the burdens of being covered by the regulatory environment that covers media companies.
The moment you start treating content like a newspaper i.e. deciding what gets published, then you are effectively a media company and should be regulated as such.
Yes, I see what you mean. Perhaps you're right. But does the previous position imply that they must publish anything, including ISIS calls for terrorism, or child porn, say? My understanding has always been that they are expected to draw the line at illegal content, in which case the issue is purely whether Trump's recvent tweets amounted to that. I will admit to a certain cynicism about their doing it when he's on his way out.
You are right to be cynical Nick. The social media platforms had been wary Trump may use an Executive Order against them but they obviously think his power has totally gone. Child porn is illegal but even there - as the Pornhub scandal has shown - the platforms have been lax and are more likely to react to pressure from advertisers than Governments. Ditto with the ISIS videos and YouTube was actually resisting for a while on the grounds that it was indeed just a hosting platform.
One thing that has been a bit overlooked is that Kamala Harris is incredibly close to the major US social media companies, especially Facebook, and I think there is a feeling they have a friend near the White House who will make sure no negative legislation will get through. The problem with that there is a growing consensus in the Republican party, led by Hawley and Cruz, that one of Trump's biggest mistakes was not cracking down on the social media companies when they had a chance. They don't intend to make the same mistake again and, if the Republicans retake both Houses in 2022, then you can expect the social media giants to be one of the first items on the agenda.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
When people look back from the future on January 2021, BLM comments will not figure into anything at all. Not even a footnote.
The insurrection at the Capitol will.
Your desperate search for a counter-narrative is probably doomed; it takes a special kind of weird to anything that has happened anywhere in the world so far this month will even partially eclipse what the Trump mob did.
Well, I would quite happily take a bet you are absolutely wrong. I would even bother to reply to the rest of your mutterings as you seem like one of those people who will make every justification under the sun to justify violence by BLM and Antifa but the moment you see a guy in a Trump hat you scream "threat too democracy!!!"
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
To be clear I think Google and Apple moving against Parler and enforcing a policy of moderation of user-generated content is the significant thing here. They are no friends of Facebook.
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
William Glenn is right and you are wrong. The main legal protection for the tech platforms is they are not media companies because they don't edit content. That defence has been blown away.
I understand the point, but this is a storm in a teacup. Just another extremist account being banned. It's pretty standard fare, and it's only the fringes that would say that accounts inciting violence should be allowed to remain.
It feels dramatic because it's the outgoing president, but legally it's pretty tame and I can't think a majority of politicians really want to fight this fight.
Another weak link these days for those who don't want to be depersoned / deplatformed....cloudflare...if they won't do business with you, very difficult to keep your website up if you are expecting high traffic and want to have defence against DDoS type attacks.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
Sorry, but you are giving FAR too much credence to & focus upon the hard-core Putinists within the Republican Party. Because their Fearless Leader has pulled the rug out from under them.
Far from increasing, their influence is DECREASING, hour by hour. Because real Americans - Republicans, Democrats, Independents - will NOT forget their attempted putsch. NEVER.
I'm sorry @SeaShantyIrish2 but I think you are looking at things through what you want to believe rather than what is happening (and I'm sure I would be accused of the same thing). As I said, many normally pro-Trump commentators were mad about what Trump said and there was real anger at his actions plus what had gone on in Georgia (although blame there was split between Trump and McConnell). While that anger is still there, it has been more than eclipsed by anger about the BLM comments / the treatment of the shooting of the pro-Trump protestor.
As I said, there was a feeling that the contest on the co-chairman of the RNC could have been the first signs that Trump's influence was waning. Instead, that didn't happen, quite the opposite.
‘Coward’: MAGA internet turns on Trump The president acknowledged his defeat and urged for political reconciliation. His online faithful didn’t take it well
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
William Glenn is right and you are wrong. The main legal protection for the tech platforms is they are not media companies because they don't edit content. That defence has been blown away.
I understand the point, but this is a storm in a teacup. Just another extremist account being banned. It's pretty standard fare, and it's only the fringes that would say that accounts inciting violence should be allowed to remain.
It feels dramatic because it's the outgoing president, but legally it's pretty tame and I can't think a majority of politicians really want to fight this fight.
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
William Glenn is right and you are wrong. The main legal protection for the tech platforms is they are not media companies because they don't edit content. That defence has been blown away.
I understand the point, but this is a storm in a teacup. Just another extremist account being banned. It's pretty standard fare, and it's only the fringes that would say that accounts inciting violence should be allowed to remain.
It feels dramatic because it's the outgoing president, but legally it's pretty tame and I can't think a majority of politicians really want to fight this fight.
Relax, this will blow over.
It's not. The social media platforms have claimed they are tech platforms and are hence mere hosters of content who make no editorial decisions. Hence they should not be regulated.
By coming out and making this move, they have come off the fence and decided they are editors of content, i.e. media companies. That makes them liable to the same stringent rules as media companies face.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
When people look back from the future on January 2021, BLM comments will not figure into anything at all. Not even a footnote.
The insurrection at the Capitol will.
Your desperate search for a counter-narrative is probably doomed; it takes a special kind of weird to anything that has happened anywhere in the world so far this month will even partially eclipse what the Trump mob did.
Well, I would quite happily take a bet you are absolutely wrong. I would even bother to reply to the rest of your mutterings as you seem like one of those people who will make every justification under the sun to justify violence by BLM and Antifa but the moment you see a guy in a Trump hat you scream "threat too democracy!!!"
Not only are you wrong, but you're playing the stupid odds too. Most people who oppose political violence, oppose political violence. So it was a pretty long shot you tried and, ya, you missed. Better luck next time.
It would probably be a valuable lesson for you to learn that the world isn't really divided into ski-masked thugs (right wing) and ski-masked thugs (left-wing). Almost everyone (me included) is neither. It disturbs me that you think that my opposing the Trump insurrection must mean I'm just a different flavour of seditious. You are possibly ill.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
When people look back from the future on January 2021, BLM comments will not figure into anything at all. Not even a footnote.
The insurrection at the Capitol will.
Your desperate search for a counter-narrative is probably doomed; it takes a special kind of weird to anything that has happened anywhere in the world so far this month will even partially eclipse what the Trump mob did.
Well, I would quite happily take a bet you are absolutely wrong. I would even bother to reply to the rest of your mutterings as you seem like one of those people who will make every justification under the sun to justify violence by BLM and Antifa but the moment you see a guy in a Trump hat you scream "threat too democracy!!!"
Not only are you wrong, but you're playing the stupid odds too. Most people who oppose political violence, oppose political violence. So it was a pretty long shot you tried and, ya, you missed. Better luck next time.
It would probably be a valuable lesson for you to learn that the world isn't really divided into ski-masked thugs (right wing) and ski-masked thugs (left-wing). Almost everyone (me included) is neither. It disturbs me that you think that my opposing the Trump insurrection must mean I'm just a different flavour of seditious. You are possibly ill.
Thank you Doctor Batty, personally I think your cousin Nora has a far greater grasp of things.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
Sorry, but you are giving FAR too much credence to & focus upon the hard-core Putinists within the Republican Party. Because their Fearless Leader has pulled the rug out from under them.
Far from increasing, their influence is DECREASING, hour by hour. Because real Americans - Republicans, Democrats, Independents - will NOT forget their attempted putsch. NEVER.
I'm sorry @SeaShantyIrish2 but I think you are looking at things through what you want to believe rather than what is happening (and I'm sure I would be accused of the same thing). As I said, many normally pro-Trump commentators were mad about what Trump said and there was real anger at his actions plus what had gone on in Georgia (although blame there was split between Trump and McConnell). While that anger is still there, it has been more than eclipsed by anger about the BLM comments / the treatment of the shooting of the pro-Trump protestor.
As I said, there was a feeling that the contest on the co-chairman of the RNC could have been the first signs that Trump's influence was waning. Instead, that didn't happen, quite the opposite.
We shall see. Still early days, the country - my country - is still in shock.
But the idea that GOP can save themselves by blaming Black Lives Matter is ridiculous. Esp. when you consider that a majority of Americans - including MANY Republicans - support the basic goal of BLM: equality & justice before the law.
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
To be clear I think Google and Apple moving against Parler and enforcing a policy of moderation of user-generated content is the significant thing here. They are no friends of Facebook.
The bet the tech companies are making is that a Democrat administration will not make a move against them, which I think is correct. The problem with that bet is that, at some point, the Republicans could come back and instigate a payback.
I can see why they have done it but, as Michael Jordan said, Republican buys shoes as well.
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
William Glenn is right and you are wrong. The main legal protection for the tech platforms is they are not media companies because they don't edit content. That defence has been blown away.
I understand the point, but this is a storm in a teacup. Just another extremist account being banned. It's pretty standard fare, and it's only the fringes that would say that accounts inciting violence should be allowed to remain.
It feels dramatic because it's the outgoing president, but legally it's pretty tame and I can't think a majority of politicians really want to fight this fight.
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
William Glenn is right and you are wrong. The main legal protection for the tech platforms is they are not media companies because they don't edit content. That defence has been blown away.
I understand the point, but this is a storm in a teacup. Just another extremist account being banned. It's pretty standard fare, and it's only the fringes that would say that accounts inciting violence should be allowed to remain.
It feels dramatic because it's the outgoing president, but legally it's pretty tame and I can't think a majority of politicians really want to fight this fight.
Relax, this will blow over.
It's not. The social media platforms have claimed they are tech platforms and are hence mere hosters of content who make no editorial decisions. Hence they should not be regulated.
By coming out and making this move, they have come off the fence and decided they are editors of content, i.e. media companies. That makes them liable to the same stringent rules as media companies face.
Once again, I understand the point, but don't agree. You don't have to keep explaining it. The bit where I think you're going wrong is in thinking that banning Trump is any kind of departure from existing protocols. I think it'll inspire the MAGAs to think something should be done, but the MAGAs aren't in charge of anything any more. There is political will for what you're talking about but nowhere near enough.
When you boil it down, Twitter has banned someone for inciting serious criminal conduct, and that person happens to be the US president. Sometimes ordinary things happen to extraordinary people. And getting dumped by Twitter is somewhere south of receiving a speeding ticket in terms of importance.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
When people look back from the future on January 2021, BLM comments will not figure into anything at all. Not even a footnote.
The insurrection at the Capitol will.
Your desperate search for a counter-narrative is probably doomed; it takes a special kind of weird to anything that has happened anywhere in the world so far this month will even partially eclipse what the Trump mob did.
Well, I would quite happily take a bet you are absolutely wrong. I would even bother to reply to the rest of your mutterings as you seem like one of those people who will make every justification under the sun to justify violence by BLM and Antifa but the moment you see a guy in a Trump hat you scream "threat too democracy!!!"
Not only are you wrong, but you're playing the stupid odds too. Most people who oppose political violence, oppose political violence. So it was a pretty long shot you tried and, ya, you missed. Better luck next time.
It would probably be a valuable lesson for you to learn that the world isn't really divided into ski-masked thugs (right wing) and ski-masked thugs (left-wing). Almost everyone (me included) is neither. It disturbs me that you think that my opposing the Trump insurrection must mean I'm just a different flavour of seditious. You are possibly ill.
Thank you Doctor Batty, personally I think your cousin Nora has a far greater grasp of things.
Nora's my sister, and she says can you stop calling her when you're drunk.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
Sorry, but you are giving FAR too much credence to & focus upon the hard-core Putinists within the Republican Party. Because their Fearless Leader has pulled the rug out from under them.
Far from increasing, their influence is DECREASING, hour by hour. Because real Americans - Republicans, Democrats, Independents - will NOT forget their attempted putsch. NEVER.
I'm sorry @SeaShantyIrish2 but I think you are looking at things through what you want to believe rather than what is happening (and I'm sure I would be accused of the same thing). As I said, many normally pro-Trump commentators were mad about what Trump said and there was real anger at his actions plus what had gone on in Georgia (although blame there was split between Trump and McConnell). While that anger is still there, it has been more than eclipsed by anger about the BLM comments / the treatment of the shooting of the pro-Trump protestor.
As I said, there was a feeling that the contest on the co-chairman of the RNC could have been the first signs that Trump's influence was waning. Instead, that didn't happen, quite the opposite.
We shall see. Still early days, the country - my country - is still in shock.
But the idea that GOP can save themselves by blaming Black Lives Matter is ridiculous. Esp. when you consider that a majority of Americans - including MANY Republicans - support the basic goal of BLM: equality & justice before the law.
But they don't support some of the other aspects of BLM, such as destruction of the nuclear family and the complete erosion of gender. BLM has a much wider agenda than promoting black lives.
Plus, look again at the House elections. James Clyburn, not exactly a raving Republican, came out and said the anti-police message was madness.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
When people look back from the future on January 2021, BLM comments will not figure into anything at all. Not even a footnote.
The insurrection at the Capitol will.
Your desperate search for a counter-narrative is probably doomed; it takes a special kind of weird to anything that has happened anywhere in the world so far this month will even partially eclipse what the Trump mob did.
Well, I would quite happily take a bet you are absolutely wrong. I would even bother to reply to the rest of your mutterings as you seem like one of those people who will make every justification under the sun to justify violence by BLM and Antifa but the moment you see a guy in a Trump hat you scream "threat too democracy!!!"
Not only are you wrong, but you're playing the stupid odds too. Most people who oppose political violence, oppose political violence. So it was a pretty long shot you tried and, ya, you missed. Better luck next time.
It would probably be a valuable lesson for you to learn that the world isn't really divided into ski-masked thugs (right wing) and ski-masked thugs (left-wing). Almost everyone (me included) is neither. It disturbs me that you think that my opposing the Trump insurrection must mean I'm just a different flavour of seditious. You are possibly ill.
Thank you Doctor Batty, personally I think your cousin Nora has a far greater grasp of things.
Nora's my sister, and she says can you stop calling her when you're drunk.
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
William Glenn is right and you are wrong. The main legal protection for the tech platforms is they are not media companies because they don't edit content. That defence has been blown away.
I understand the point, but this is a storm in a teacup. Just another extremist account being banned. It's pretty standard fare, and it's only the fringes that would say that accounts inciting violence should be allowed to remain.
It feels dramatic because it's the outgoing president, but legally it's pretty tame and I can't think a majority of politicians really want to fight this fight.
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
William Glenn is right and you are wrong. The main legal protection for the tech platforms is they are not media companies because they don't edit content. That defence has been blown away.
I understand the point, but this is a storm in a teacup. Just another extremist account being banned. It's pretty standard fare, and it's only the fringes that would say that accounts inciting violence should be allowed to remain.
It feels dramatic because it's the outgoing president, but legally it's pretty tame and I can't think a majority of politicians really want to fight this fight.
Relax, this will blow over.
It's not. The social media platforms have claimed they are tech platforms and are hence mere hosters of content who make no editorial decisions. Hence they should not be regulated.
By coming out and making this move, they have come off the fence and decided they are editors of content, i.e. media companies. That makes them liable to the same stringent rules as media companies face.
Once again, I understand the point, but don't agree. You don't have to keep explaining it. The bit where I think you're going wrong is in thinking that banning Trump is any kind of departure from existing protocols. I think it'll inspire the MAGAs to think something should be done, but the MAGAs aren't in charge of anything any more. There is political will for what you're talking about but nowhere near enough.
When you boil it down, Twitter has banned someone for inciting serious criminal conduct, and that person happens to be the US president. Sometimes ordinary things happen to extraordinary people. And getting dumped by Twitter is somewhere south of receiving a speeding ticket in terms of importance.
As someone posted further down, they have taken down Trump but still have tweets up calling for the destruction of Israel and similar messages, plus are quite happy to host a Chinese Government that sterilises Uighur women and imprisons their men. This is the sort of stuff where you either have to be completely hands-off or completely hands-on. The selective censoring is the worst method of all.
I think Twitter is right to ban Trump. Incitement to violence is the correct line where freedom of speech stops, and it's pretty clear that's what he's using their platform for. Twitter aren't obliged to use a general social line for their moderation policy, but I think it's a good thing to do for a platform like theirs that's a big social political discussion space.
However Google and Apple banning Parler is quite creepy. Unlike websites, where anyone can set one up if they're not happy with the moderation policy, there are basically only the two viable phone platforms, and those two companies have defacto control over them.
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
William Glenn is right and you are wrong. The main legal protection for the tech platforms is they are not media companies because they don't edit content. That defence has been blown away.
I understand the point, but this is a storm in a teacup. Just another extremist account being banned. It's pretty standard fare, and it's only the fringes that would say that accounts inciting violence should be allowed to remain.
It feels dramatic because it's the outgoing president, but legally it's pretty tame and I can't think a majority of politicians really want to fight this fight.
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
William Glenn is right and you are wrong. The main legal protection for the tech platforms is they are not media companies because they don't edit content. That defence has been blown away.
I understand the point, but this is a storm in a teacup. Just another extremist account being banned. It's pretty standard fare, and it's only the fringes that would say that accounts inciting violence should be allowed to remain.
It feels dramatic because it's the outgoing president, but legally it's pretty tame and I can't think a majority of politicians really want to fight this fight.
Relax, this will blow over.
It's not. The social media platforms have claimed they are tech platforms and are hence mere hosters of content who make no editorial decisions. Hence they should not be regulated.
By coming out and making this move, they have come off the fence and decided they are editors of content, i.e. media companies. That makes them liable to the same stringent rules as media companies face.
Once again, I understand the point, but don't agree. You don't have to keep explaining it. The bit where I think you're going wrong is in thinking that banning Trump is any kind of departure from existing protocols. I think it'll inspire the MAGAs to think something should be done, but the MAGAs aren't in charge of anything any more. There is political will for what you're talking about but nowhere near enough.
When you boil it down, Twitter has banned someone for inciting serious criminal conduct, and that person happens to be the US president. Sometimes ordinary things happen to extraordinary people. And getting dumped by Twitter is somewhere south of receiving a speeding ticket in terms of importance.
As someone posted further down, they have taken down Trump but still have tweets up calling for the destruction of Israel and similar messages, plus are quite happy to host a Chinese Government that sterilises Uighur women and imprisons their men. This is the sort of stuff where you either have to be completely hands-off or completely hands-on. The selective censoring is the worst method of all.
I think this is the same line that would be enforced by a British court, ie incitement to violence is a standard and generally-accepted category of bannable speech, but violence by a *government* generally doesn't count. I'm not sure I like the principle behind that but I can't think of a better way to draw a consistent line, since governments are intrinsically violent; A monopoly of violence is the entire point of a government.
I think Twitter is right to ban Trump. Incitement to violence is the correct line where freedom of speech stops, and it's pretty clear that's what he's using their platform for. Twitter aren't obliged to use a general social line for their moderation policy, but I think it's a good thing to do for a platform like theirs that's a big social political discussion space.
However Google and Apple banning Parler is quite creepy. Unlike websites, where anyone can set one up if they're not happy with the moderation policy, there are basically only the two viable phone platforms, and those two companies have defacto control over them.
They have form. They did the same to Minds a few years ago.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
Sorry, but you are giving FAR too much credence to & focus upon the hard-core Putinists within the Republican Party. Because their Fearless Leader has pulled the rug out from under them.
Far from increasing, their influence is DECREASING, hour by hour. Because real Americans - Republicans, Democrats, Independents - will NOT forget their attempted putsch. NEVER.
I'm sorry @SeaShantyIrish2 but I think you are looking at things through what you want to believe rather than what is happening (and I'm sure I would be accused of the same thing). As I said, many normally pro-Trump commentators were mad about what Trump said and there was real anger at his actions plus what had gone on in Georgia (although blame there was split between Trump and McConnell). While that anger is still there, it has been more than eclipsed by anger about the BLM comments / the treatment of the shooting of the pro-Trump protestor.
As I said, there was a feeling that the contest on the co-chairman of the RNC could have been the first signs that Trump's influence was waning. Instead, that didn't happen, quite the opposite.
We shall see. Still early days, the country - my country - is still in shock.
But the idea that GOP can save themselves by blaming Black Lives Matter is ridiculous. Esp. when you consider that a majority of Americans - including MANY Republicans - support the basic goal of BLM: equality & justice before the law.
But they don't support some of the other aspects of BLM, such as destruction of the nuclear family and the complete erosion of gender. BLM has a much wider agenda than promoting black lives.
Plus, look again at the House elections. James Clyburn, not exactly a raving Republican, came out and said the anti-police message was madness.
Biden won the Presidential election by more than 7 million votes, and the Electoral College by 306 to 232.
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
William Glenn is right and you are wrong. The main legal protection for the tech platforms is they are not media companies because they don't edit content. That defence has been blown away.
I understand the point, but this is a storm in a teacup. Just another extremist account being banned. It's pretty standard fare, and it's only the fringes that would say that accounts inciting violence should be allowed to remain.
It feels dramatic because it's the outgoing president, but legally it's pretty tame and I can't think a majority of politicians really want to fight this fight.
The social media companies have just lost the war to have themselves seen as platforms rather than publishers.
Probably not. This is far less important than it looks to you right now.
William Glenn is right and you are wrong. The main legal protection for the tech platforms is they are not media companies because they don't edit content. That defence has been blown away.
I understand the point, but this is a storm in a teacup. Just another extremist account being banned. It's pretty standard fare, and it's only the fringes that would say that accounts inciting violence should be allowed to remain.
It feels dramatic because it's the outgoing president, but legally it's pretty tame and I can't think a majority of politicians really want to fight this fight.
Relax, this will blow over.
It's not. The social media platforms have claimed they are tech platforms and are hence mere hosters of content who make no editorial decisions. Hence they should not be regulated.
By coming out and making this move, they have come off the fence and decided they are editors of content, i.e. media companies. That makes them liable to the same stringent rules as media companies face.
Once again, I understand the point, but don't agree. You don't have to keep explaining it. The bit where I think you're going wrong is in thinking that banning Trump is any kind of departure from existing protocols. I think it'll inspire the MAGAs to think something should be done, but the MAGAs aren't in charge of anything any more. There is political will for what you're talking about but nowhere near enough.
When you boil it down, Twitter has banned someone for inciting serious criminal conduct, and that person happens to be the US president. Sometimes ordinary things happen to extraordinary people. And getting dumped by Twitter is somewhere south of receiving a speeding ticket in terms of importance.
As someone posted further down, they have taken down Trump but still have tweets up calling for the destruction of Israel and similar messages, plus are quite happy to host a Chinese Government that sterilises Uighur women and imprisons their men. This is the sort of stuff where you either have to be completely hands-off or completely hands-on. The selective censoring is the worst method of all.
Yes, and I personally would support the removal of accounts that call for attacks against Israel or its people. On any country or people, in fact. And perhaps in cases where an account it used to drive traffic to extremist content elsewhere.
Other than that, we don't have to think that being allowed to have an account - or not - is a reflection of that person's value or rectitude. As long as they aren't using that platform to inflict harm. Donald Trump being kicked off is not a reflection on his character, it's a response to his actions on the platform.
Some thoughts on what is happening and Mike's header (and, as usual, thanks for doing that).
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
Sorry, but you are giving FAR too much credence to & focus upon the hard-core Putinists within the Republican Party. Because their Fearless Leader has pulled the rug out from under them.
Far from increasing, their influence is DECREASING, hour by hour. Because real Americans - Republicans, Democrats, Independents - will NOT forget their attempted putsch. NEVER.
I'm sorry @SeaShantyIrish2 but I think you are looking at things through what you want to believe rather than what is happening (and I'm sure I would be accused of the same thing). As I said, many normally pro-Trump commentators were mad about what Trump said and there was real anger at his actions plus what had gone on in Georgia (although blame there was split between Trump and McConnell). While that anger is still there, it has been more than eclipsed by anger about the BLM comments / the treatment of the shooting of the pro-Trump protestor.
As I said, there was a feeling that the contest on the co-chairman of the RNC could have been the first signs that Trump's influence was waning. Instead, that didn't happen, quite the opposite.
We shall see. Still early days, the country - my country - is still in shock.
But the idea that GOP can save themselves by blaming Black Lives Matter is ridiculous. Esp. when you consider that a majority of Americans - including MANY Republicans - support the basic goal of BLM: equality & justice before the law.
But they don't support some of the other aspects of BLM, such as destruction of the nuclear family and the complete erosion of gender. BLM has a much wider agenda than promoting black lives.
Plus, look again at the House elections. James Clyburn, not exactly a raving Republican, came out and said the anti-police message was madness.
Who is this "they"? Nobody but nobody except professional bloggers & the like gives a damn about what some BLM "leader" or other is spouting woke-wise.
When I say the basic goals of Black Lives Matter, what I mean is equality & justice before the law.
Or in other words, cops stop shooting Black people like it's no big deal. It is.
SO the Putinists can spin like tops, and blame BLM for their sins. BUT it just will NOT wash. Even with the majority of Republicans, let alone Americans.
When Joe McCarthy went splat, there was plenty such yammering early on, of course in newspaper columns and rumor mills, this being the 1950s.
But soon became obvious it was as welcome as turds in a punch bowl. That Tail-gunner Joe had gone from a electoral political asset to a serious political demerit to his party. In fact, he helped push far right conservatism into the bushes with the KKK, John Birch Society, etc.; and was part of the reason for Barry Goldwater's thrashing in 1964, and why the "New" Nixon of 1968 was nearly defeated due to 3rd party bid by overtly-racist, populist conservative George Wallace. In fact, wasn't until 1980 that hard right achieved a partial revival under the kinder, gentler conservatism of Ronald Reagan. Who no doubt would be horrified by both Trumpsky AND the mob attack.
These sins can NOT be tap-danced away by some shucking and jiving over BLM. And it's stupd for the sinners to even try, as it just underlines their guilt.
You once said it was a mistake to look upon Donald Trump as evil. Well, he IS evil and he sure proved it this week.
I do NOT think that folks who voted for Trump (once or twice) are evil, including (most of) politicos & pundits of this ilk, including even those who still support him & his crimes, and even most of the dipshits of the Capitol mob.
"Father forgive them, they know not what they do."
Perhaps even more important, I believe that we - Democrats as well as Republicans - must LISTEN and pay attention to the grievances, frustrations and situations that drove millions of our fellow citizens to turn to Donald Fucking Trumpsky, and actually elect him President. And nearly RE-ELECTED him.
Like Pogo used to say in the old comic strip, "We have found he enemy - and they is us."
1) There are 12 days left. 2) The House will probably impeach, but it'll take them at least a week, so there will be like 7 days left 3) The Senate won't be in session, and McConnell won't recall it, but he'll reserve the right to if Trump goes out of control. This, and the 25th amendment, will be dangled over him in case he tries to nuke California or something. 4) The Senate will be in session on like Trump's very last day (???), but McConnell won't have an immediate trial 5) The new Senate will bring a trial once Trump is out of office, and it's not totally clear which way it will go. Collectively the GOP would probably like Trump impeached to stop him running next time, but individually it doesn't seem useful to enrage his base. They can reasonably say "time to move on", and the heat will gone out of it a bit since Trump is out of office and unpersoned on social media. So probably there isn't a super-majority to convict, but it's not unthinkable.
4) The Senate will be in session on like Trump's very last day (???), but McConnell won't have an immediate trial
Small correction, looking it up there seem to be a couple of pro-forma sessions (which conduct no business), but no regular session until after Biden is inaugurated. And McConnell says he won't change a pro-forma session into a regular session without unanimous agreement, which he won't get. I'm not sure if it's technically possible to change that requirement, but a conviction before January 20th seems like a non-starter.
I guess McConnell is also happy that the whole thing will eat into Democratic time, since Biden may well only have two years to get stuff done before losing one or the other of the veto points in the mid-terms.
Good morning everyone. No sign of snow here, but it's cold.
On topic, given the time available I agree with Mr E-i-T's last point; 'going after' Trump may well eat into legislative time, which would be better used on putting right some of the various wrongs. Surely it would be better, perhaps, to pass a censure resolution and then leave the States to prosecute for the various tax (and possibly other) offences he, and his family, appear to have committed. That would have the advantage of leaving him mired in legal and financial problems, and slowly and steadily diminishing him, rather than making him a victim.
I think it is entirely unsurprising that someone responsible for attempting a coup might be banned from a mass communication platform that wants to preserve its good reputation.
Compared to what Trump might try to do in the few days left of his Presidency it is nothing.
Want to stay on Twitter? Don't launch a coup.
We have no conclusive evidence that Trump was attempting a coup. That is all media supposition and, indeed, I reckon, wishful thinking in some parts.
I have read the theories, the roiled crowd marches down the Avenue, the Senate is suspended (or whatever), the election is re-assessed, and so he stays in office.
These theories are plausible, but no more than that. Everything Trump has done is also in accord with a more reasonable hypothesis: that he is a pathetic narcissist that couldn't face public defeat, so he wanted to go out with a show of power: get his people to march on the Capitol, kick off a few scuffles, a firework or two, he feels defended, he bows out having shown he is still a force in American politics (however evil), his frail masculine pride is sustained.
That seems a more likely story. Therefore this banning and accompanying shite is all stupidly overdone and premature. Mockery is much more effective than censorship.
I'm , but your assessment is way off base re: the POTUS inciting a mob to attack the US Capitol to prevent Congress from fulfilling one of its MOST important duties under the Constitution.
You seem to think there is a mass constituency in America for this horseshit. You are wrong.
The polling implies I am right, Most Americans want the morons who attacked the Capitol arrested. Rightly. They do not believe this was an organised and attempted coup.
Why would they? It was a disorganised attempted coup. A coup by the bat-shit crazy, for the bat-shit crazy, with all the randomness that implies. Some gates were opened, some security stood down, but where others (primarily a VP who was not onboard) could still close those gates and bring in the National Guard.
Although they’re all idiots, it’s slightly reassuring to think the biggest political scandal in UK politics right now is whether a leader in a provincial assembly lied about her predecessor being a creepy git.
And that last year it was about the correct procedure for an eye test.
Not whether or not there’s an actual coup in progress led by a lunatic and supported by those who believe in the lizard people.
Mr. Doethur, it's only two years ago since the Shadow Chancellor was a man who openly praised rioting thugs, and the current Home Secretary is Priti Patel.
It's a pretty low bar to clear if "the legislature has not been stormed" becomes the threshold of comfort.
Mr. Doethur, it's only two years ago since the Shadow Chancellor was a man who openly praised rioting thugs, and the current Home Secretary is Priti Patel.
It's a pretty low bar to clear if "the legislature has not been stormed" becomes the threshold of comfort.
Well, this is true. And we still have no very good explanation as to why Robert Jenrick is still in post, or Gavin Williamson.
But they are not Donald Trump. Which is acceptable under the circumstances.
Mr. Doethur, it's only two years ago since the Shadow Chancellor was a man who openly praised rioting thugs, and the current Home Secretary is Priti Patel.
It's a pretty low bar to clear if "the legislature has not been stormed" becomes the threshold of comfort.
I don't think Patel's done anything more obnoxious than might be expected, has she? I mean, it was expected that she'd foul up immigration.
Mr. Doethur, it's only two years ago since the Shadow Chancellor was a man who openly praised rioting thugs, and the current Home Secretary is Priti Patel.
It's a pretty low bar to clear if "the legislature has not been stormed" becomes the threshold of comfort.
I don't think Patel's done anything more obnoxious than might be expected, has she? I mean, it was expected that she'd foul up immigration.
Mr. Doethur, it's only two years ago since the Shadow Chancellor was a man who openly praised rioting thugs, and the current Home Secretary is Priti Patel.
It's a pretty low bar to clear if "the legislature has not been stormed" becomes the threshold of comfort.
I don't think Patel's done anything more obnoxious than might be expected, has she? I mean, it was expected that she'd foul up immigration.
Although it might be her conflict of interest over Israel.
And your point is?
Off topic, wildly off topic, but am I alone in feeling unreasonably pressured to stop drinking alcohol, against what I feel is my better judgement. Neither Mrs C nor I drink a lot; glass of wine before and another with our evening meal most days. Rarely spirits, and if we do they often replace one of wines. And we feel it complements the meal. And at least once a week we don't have anything at all.
The lefties secretly loved Trump's tweets. Certainly judging by the amount of re-tweeting of them with added narrative about "OMG how can he say that /how stupid he is etc. Makes it a bit harder for them to practise the art of virtue signalling now.
Mr. Doethur, it's only two years ago since the Shadow Chancellor was a man who openly praised rioting thugs, and the current Home Secretary is Priti Patel.
It's a pretty low bar to clear if "the legislature has not been stormed" becomes the threshold of comfort.
I don't think Patel's done anything more obnoxious than might be expected, has she? I mean, it was expected that she'd foul up immigration.
Although it might be her conflict of interest over Israel.
And your point is?
Off topic, wildly off topic, but am I alone in feeling unreasonably pressured to stop drinking alcohol, against what I feel is my better judgement. Neither Mrs C nor I drink a lot; glass of wine before and another with our evening meal most days. Rarely spirits, and if we do they often replace one of wines. And we feel it complements the meal. And at least once a week we don't have anything at all.
Have you added up the no of bottles that represents and the no of calories. I am on day 9 of being "au regime" as the French call it. Its all a question of self control and not opening the fridge/ uncorking a red.
Mr. Doethur, it's only two years ago since the Shadow Chancellor was a man who openly praised rioting thugs, and the current Home Secretary is Priti Patel.
It's a pretty low bar to clear if "the legislature has not been stormed" becomes the threshold of comfort.
I don't think Patel's done anything more obnoxious than might be expected, has she? I mean, it was expected that she'd foul up immigration.
Although it might be her conflict of interest over Israel.
And your point is?
Off topic, wildly off topic, but am I alone in feeling unreasonably pressured to stop drinking alcohol, against what I feel is my better judgement. Neither Mrs C nor I drink a lot; glass of wine before and another with our evening meal most days. Rarely spirits, and if we do they often replace one of wines. And we feel it complements the meal. And at least once a week we don't have anything at all.
Dry January or whatever the social media collective mutate the phrase into is another one of those rituals built up through social media like clapping for the NHS. At the end of the day it is meaningless and hardly promotes sustainability in this area. If you are an alcoholic you shoudl look to not drink at all , if you drink too much , cut down a bit , if you drink moderately there is no reason to arbitarily stop for a month (of other peoples choosing) especially as most vices in moderation improve well being including drink
Mr. Doethur, it's only two years ago since the Shadow Chancellor was a man who openly praised rioting thugs, and the current Home Secretary is Priti Patel.
It's a pretty low bar to clear if "the legislature has not been stormed" becomes the threshold of comfort.
I don't think Patel's done anything more obnoxious than might be expected, has she? I mean, it was expected that she'd foul up immigration.
Although it might be her conflict of interest over Israel.
And your point is?
Off topic, wildly off topic, but am I alone in feeling unreasonably pressured to stop drinking alcohol, against what I feel is my better judgement. Neither Mrs C nor I drink a lot; glass of wine before and another with our evening meal most days. Rarely spirits, and if we do they often replace one of wines. And we feel it complements the meal. And at least once a week we don't have anything at all.
Have you added up the no of bottles that represents and the no of calories. I am on day 9 of being "au regime" as the French call it. Its all a question of self control and not opening the fridge/ uncorking a red.
I sleep better than I could have imagined itoo.
Well, while I'm not not slim, I'm not overweight. And sometimes we sleep well, sometimes we don't; generally as a result of being concerned about our family. Money-wise, I don't buy £30 bottles.
I think it is entirely unsurprising that someone responsible for attempting a coup might be banned from a mass communication platform that wants to preserve its good reputation.
Compared to what Trump might try to do in the few days left of his Presidency it is nothing.
Want to stay on Twitter? Don't launch a coup.
We have no conclusive evidence that Trump was attempting a coup. That is all media supposition and, indeed, I reckon, wishful thinking in some parts.
I have read the theories, the roiled crowd marches down the Avenue, the Senate is suspended (or whatever), the election is re-assessed, and so he stays in office.
These theories are plausible, but no more than that. Everything Trump has done is also in accord with a more reasonable hypothesis: that he is a pathetic narcissist that couldn't face public defeat, so he wanted to go out with a show of power: get his people to march on the Capitol, kick off a few scuffles, a firework or two, he feels defended, he bows out having shown he is still a force in American politics (however evil), his frail masculine pride is sustained.
That seems a more likely story. Therefore this banning and accompanying shite is all stupidly overdone and premature. Mockery is much more effective than censorship.
I'm , but your assessment is way off base re: the POTUS inciting a mob to attack the US Capitol to prevent Congress from fulfilling one of its MOST important duties under the Constitution.
You seem to think there is a mass constituency in America for this horseshit. You are wrong.
The polling implies I am right, Most Americans want the morons who attacked the Capitol arrested. Rightly. They do not believe this was an organised and attempted coup.
Why would they? It was a disorganised attempted coup. A coup by the bat-shit crazy, for the bat-shit crazy, with all the randomness that implies. Some gates were opened, some security stood down, but where others (primarily a VP who was not onboard) could still close those gates and bring in the National Guard.
A Clown Coup.
It could have been different if Pence had been willing to go along with it - and I suspect Trump was counting on that and only realised it wasn’t going to happen shortly prior.
The lefties secretly loved Trump's tweets. Certainly judging by the amount of re-tweeting of them with added narrative about "OMG how can he say that /how stupid he is etc. Makes it a bit harder for them to practise the art of virtue signalling now.
Mr. Doethur, it's only two years ago since the Shadow Chancellor was a man who openly praised rioting thugs, and the current Home Secretary is Priti Patel.
It's a pretty low bar to clear if "the legislature has not been stormed" becomes the threshold of comfort.
I don't think Patel's done anything more obnoxious than might be expected, has she? I mean, it was expected that she'd foul up immigration.
Although it might be her conflict of interest over Israel.
And your point is?
Off topic, wildly off topic, but am I alone in feeling unreasonably pressured to stop drinking alcohol, against what I feel is my better judgement. Neither Mrs C nor I drink a lot; glass of wine before and another with our evening meal most days. Rarely spirits, and if we do they often replace one of wines. And we feel it complements the meal. And at least once a week we don't have anything at all.
Dry January or whatever the social media collective mutate the phrase into is another one of those rituals built up through social media like clapping for the NHS. At the end of the day it is meaningless and hardly promotes sustainability in this area. If you are an alcoholic you shoudl look to not drink at all , if you drink too much , cut down a bit , if you drink moderately there is no reason to arbitarily stop for a month (of other peoples choosing) especially as most vices in moderation improve well being including drink
One does not stop as a result of other people choosing, it a personal choice. I want to lose weight and not drinking certainly makes a big difference. Its also a good idea to give the kidneys a rest too. It is also immensely satisfying to use one's personal willpower do not do something.
I stopped smoking on a sudden decision and haven't had a cigarette for 7.5 yrs. You could call that peer pressure as there is considerable societal pressure to cease smoking. And a jolly good thing too, as is ramping up the tax on cigarettes!
The lefties secretly loved Trump's tweets. Certainly judging by the amount of re-tweeting of them with added narrative about "OMG how can he say that /how stupid he is etc. Makes it a bit harder for them to practise the art of virtue signalling now.
The lefties secretly loved Trump's tweets. Certainly judging by the amount of re-tweeting of them with added narrative about "OMG how can he say that /how stupid he is etc. Makes it a bit harder for them to practise the art of virtue signalling now.
Lefties? Non-Trump righties as often as not.
yes but they do not generally get "outraged" enough to re-twwet etc .they tend to just ignore and maybe mutter "knob" under their breath occasionally. Its the signed up politico lefties that need them almost like food
I think it is entirely unsurprising that someone responsible for attempting a coup might be banned from a mass communication platform that wants to preserve its good reputation.
Compared to what Trump might try to do in the few days left of his Presidency it is nothing.
Want to stay on Twitter? Don't launch a coup.
We have no conclusive evidence that Trump was attempting a coup. That is all media supposition and, indeed, I reckon, wishful thinking in some parts.
I have read the theories, the roiled crowd marches down the Avenue, the Senate is suspended (or whatever), the election is re-assessed, and so he stays in office.
These theories are plausible, but no more than that. Everything Trump has done is also in accord with a more reasonable hypothesis: that he is a pathetic narcissist that couldn't face public defeat, so he wanted to go out with a show of power: get his people to march on the Capitol, kick off a few scuffles, a firework or two, he feels defended, he bows out having shown he is still a force in American politics (however evil), his frail masculine pride is sustained.
That seems a more likely story. Therefore this banning and accompanying shite is all stupidly overdone and premature. Mockery is much more effective than censorship.
I'm , but your assessment is way off base re: the POTUS inciting a mob to attack the US Capitol to prevent Congress from fulfilling one of its MOST important duties under the Constitution.
You seem to think there is a mass constituency in America for this horseshit. You are wrong.
The polling implies I am right, Most Americans want the morons who attacked the Capitol arrested. Rightly. They do not believe this was an organised and attempted coup.
Why would they? It was a disorganised attempted coup. A coup by the bat-shit crazy, for the bat-shit crazy, with all the randomness that implies. Some gates were opened, some security stood down, but where others (primarily a VP who was not onboard) could still close those gates and bring in the National Guard.
A Clown Coup.
It could have been different if Pence had been willing to go along with it - and I suspect Trump was counting on that and only realised it wasn’t going to happen shortly prior.
I'm not convinced. By some accounts, Trump and Pence was only ever a marriage of convenience and they held each other in contempt almost from day one.
Mr. Doethur, it's only two years ago since the Shadow Chancellor was a man who openly praised rioting thugs, and the current Home Secretary is Priti Patel.
It's a pretty low bar to clear if "the legislature has not been stormed" becomes the threshold of comfort.
I don't think Patel's done anything more obnoxious than might be expected, has she? I mean, it was expected that she'd foul up immigration.
Although it might be her conflict of interest over Israel.
And your point is?
Off topic, wildly off topic, but am I alone in feeling unreasonably pressured to stop drinking alcohol, against what I feel is my better judgement. Neither Mrs C nor I drink a lot; glass of wine before and another with our evening meal most days. Rarely spirits, and if we do they often replace one of wines. And we feel it complements the meal. And at least once a week we don't have anything at all.
Dry January or whatever the social media collective mutate the phrase into is another one of those rituals built up through social media like clapping for the NHS. At the end of the day it is meaningless and hardly promotes sustainability in this area. If you are an alcoholic you shoudl look to not drink at all , if you drink too much , cut down a bit , if you drink moderately there is no reason to arbitarily stop for a month (of other peoples choosing) especially as most vices in moderation improve well being including drink
One does not stop as a result of other people choosing, it a personal choice. I want to lose weight and not drinking certainly makes a big difference. Its also a good idea to give the kidneys a rest too. It is also immensely satisfying to use one's personal willpower do not do something.
I stopped smoking on a sudden decision and haven't had a cigarette for 7.5 yrs. You could call that peer pressure as there is considerable societal pressure to cease smoking. And a jolly good thing too, as is ramping up the tax on cigarettes!
Fine and to be honest if it was just amateur social media doing all these "initiatives" there is no harm as any balanced adult can choose to ignore it if they so wish. I suspect a lot comes from some kind of paid posts though (at least any "content" ) and we all end up paying for effectively being nannied or peer pressured or whatever the right phrase is
Comments
The old "people are being mean to fascists and it will backfire on them" act is beyond old now.
Give it up.
You're making an arse of yourself tonight, little chum.
The Amazon catalogue might be a bit heavy, but hey.
I suppose radio hams might make a comeback...
The moment you start treating content like a newspaper i.e. deciding what gets published, then you are effectively a media company and should be regulated as such.
Also because it is a GREAT name for an isle! Every time I see or hear it, think of the howling of dogs cutting through the fog . . .
https://twitter.com/chineseembinus?lang=en
If you went into McDonalds and started screaming abuse at the staff, and they kick you out, that's not them starving you, that's just them telling you to do one because you're not welcome any more. Twitter is no different.
And yes, I know it’s a parody
You seem to think there is a mass constituency in America for this horseshit. You are wrong.
In my opinion, if anyone was inciting sedition, it was Rudy Giuliani, His Penn Ave speech saying "let there be trial by combat" does seem, to me, to get very close to inciting treasonous violence.
How sad. He was an heroic mayor of NYC. Reduced to this.
First, Trump is not getting to get impeached and Pence is not going to invoke the 25th. It's almost certain that Lindsey Graham's comments that there is no way Trump will be impeached were approved by McConnell who is well aware that such a move would invoke a firestorm in the Republican party. You might get a few senators like Romney and Sasse who vote for it but you would never get anywhere near the limits needed. On the 25th, while Pence is reportedly furious with Trump, he's also aware such a move would (a) wreck any presidential ambitions he may have and (b) it's not sure he would get the cabinet behind him (the WSJ has reported one cabinet memer saying it's completely off the table).
More importantly, and what has been missed is this, the most pro-Trump candidate romped home in the contest for the co-chairman of the RNC, in a contest that was seen as an indicator of whether Trump's hold on the party was waning. His victory made it clear it isn't, and that's a lesson many Republicans in the House and Senate will have taken heed of.
What has become clear though over the past 24 hours is the Democrats have missed an open goal when it comes to Trump. Many on the right were absolutely livid about Trump's speech to the crowd and the behaviour of the mob, as well as his comments that his 3 SC nominees should support him, and these were commentators who backed him. However, that anger has been totally eclipsed by anger about the BLM remarks made by Biden and Harris, part because they pointed out the discrepancy between the strong language used against the Capitol mob versus the language used against the BLM riots but particularly over how the media and Democrat leaders have made little mention of police brutality or excessive force when it came to the shooting of the white pro-Trump protestor, and how that would have contrasted if an unarmed Black BLM protestor had been shot in similar circumstances.
If Biden and Harris had not been so determined to drag BLM into the Capitol riots, they really could have had Trump on the hook. Instead, they have now got the anger of the right focused on what is seen as hypocrisy about different riot situations have been explained by BLM
It is time they were reined in, and their monopolies broken up.
Goodnight.
Far from increasing, their influence is DECREASING, hour by hour. Because real Americans - Republicans, Democrats, Independents - will NOT forget their attempted putsch. NEVER.
The insurrection at the Capitol will.
Your desperate search for a counter-narrative is probably doomed; it takes a special kind of weird to anything that has happened anywhere in the world so far this month will even partially eclipse what the Trump mob did.
One thing that has been a bit overlooked is that Kamala Harris is incredibly close to the major US social media companies, especially Facebook, and I think there is a feeling they have a friend near the White House who will make sure no negative legislation will get through. The problem with that there is a growing consensus in the Republican party, led by Hawley and Cruz, that one of Trump's biggest mistakes was not cracking down on the social media companies when they had a chance. They don't intend to make the same mistake again and, if the Republicans retake both Houses in 2022, then you can expect the social media giants to be one of the first items on the agenda.
It feels dramatic because it's the outgoing president, but legally it's pretty tame and I can't think a majority of politicians really want to fight this fight.
Relax, this will blow over.
As I said, there was a feeling that the contest on the co-chairman of the RNC could have been the first signs that Trump's influence was waning. Instead, that didn't happen, quite the opposite.
The president acknowledged his defeat and urged for political reconciliation. His online faithful didn’t take it well
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/08/maga-internet-turns-on-trump-456490
Even the wingnuts are becoming sick of Trumpsky.
Wonder how long it is before Don Jr. starts calling his old man a traitor (in the Trumpsky sense)?
By coming out and making this move, they have come off the fence and decided they are editors of content, i.e. media companies. That makes them liable to the same stringent rules as media companies face.
It would probably be a valuable lesson for you to learn that the world isn't really divided into ski-masked thugs (right wing) and ski-masked thugs (left-wing). Almost everyone (me included) is neither.
It disturbs me that you think that my opposing the Trump insurrection must mean I'm just a different flavour of seditious. You are possibly ill.
Trumpsky is a POTUS like no other - thank God!
But the idea that GOP can save themselves by blaming Black Lives Matter is ridiculous. Esp. when you consider that a majority of Americans - including MANY Republicans - support the basic goal of BLM: equality & justice before the law.
I can see why they have done it but, as Michael Jordan said, Republican buys shoes as well.
The bit where I think you're going wrong is in thinking that banning Trump is any kind of departure from existing protocols.
I think it'll inspire the MAGAs to think something should be done, but the MAGAs aren't in charge of anything any more. There is political will for what you're talking about but nowhere near enough.
When you boil it down, Twitter has banned someone for inciting serious criminal conduct, and that person happens to be the US president. Sometimes ordinary things happen to extraordinary people. And getting dumped by Twitter is somewhere south of receiving a speeding ticket in terms of importance.
Plus, look again at the House elections. James Clyburn, not exactly a raving Republican, came out and said the anti-police message was madness.
https://twitter.com/POTUS
However Google and Apple banning Parler is quite creepy. Unlike websites, where anyone can set one up if they're not happy with the moderation policy, there are basically only the two viable phone platforms, and those two companies have defacto control over them.
And perhaps in cases where an account it used to drive traffic to extremist content elsewhere.
Other than that, we don't have to think that being allowed to have an account - or not - is a reflection of that person's value or rectitude. As long as they aren't using that platform to inflict harm. Donald Trump being kicked off is not a reflection on his character, it's a response to his actions on the platform.
When I say the basic goals of Black Lives Matter, what I mean is equality & justice before the law.
Or in other words, cops stop shooting Black people like it's no big deal. It is.
SO the Putinists can spin like tops, and blame BLM for their sins. BUT it just will NOT wash. Even with the majority of Republicans, let alone Americans.
When Joe McCarthy went splat, there was plenty such yammering early on, of course in newspaper columns and rumor mills, this being the 1950s.
But soon became obvious it was as welcome as turds in a punch bowl. That Tail-gunner Joe had gone from a electoral political asset to a serious political demerit to his party. In fact, he helped push far right conservatism into the bushes with the KKK, John Birch Society, etc.; and was part of the reason for Barry Goldwater's thrashing in 1964, and why the "New" Nixon of 1968 was nearly defeated due to 3rd party bid by overtly-racist, populist conservative George Wallace. In fact, wasn't until 1980 that hard right achieved a partial revival under the kinder, gentler conservatism of Ronald Reagan. Who no doubt would be horrified by both Trumpsky AND the mob attack.
These sins can NOT be tap-danced away by some shucking and jiving over BLM. And it's stupd for the sinners to even try, as it just underlines their guilt.
You once said it was a mistake to look upon Donald Trump as evil. Well, he IS evil and he sure proved it this week.
I do NOT think that folks who voted for Trump (once or twice) are evil, including (most of) politicos & pundits of this ilk, including even those who still support him & his crimes, and even most of the dipshits of the Capitol mob.
"Father forgive them, they know not what they do."
Perhaps even more important, I believe that we - Democrats as well as Republicans - must LISTEN and pay attention to the grievances, frustrations and situations that drove millions of our fellow citizens to turn to Donald Fucking Trumpsky, and actually elect him President. And nearly RE-ELECTED him.
Like Pogo used to say in the old comic strip, "We have found he enemy - and they is us."
1) There are 12 days left.
2) The House will probably impeach, but it'll take them at least a week, so there will be like 7 days left
3) The Senate won't be in session, and McConnell won't recall it, but he'll reserve the right to if Trump goes out of control. This, and the 25th amendment, will be dangled over him in case he tries to nuke California or something.
4) The Senate will be in session on like Trump's very last day (???), but McConnell won't have an immediate trial
5) The new Senate will bring a trial once Trump is out of office, and it's not totally clear which way it will go. Collectively the GOP would probably like Trump impeached to stop him running next time, but individually it doesn't seem useful to enrage his base. They can reasonably say "time to move on", and the heat will gone out of it a bit since Trump is out of office and unpersoned on social media. So probably there isn't a super-majority to convict, but it's not unthinkable.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-impeachment-wont-remove-him-office-mcconnell-memo-suggests-1560209
I guess McConnell is also happy that the whole thing will eat into Democratic time, since Biden may well only have two years to get stuff done before losing one or the other of the veto points in the mid-terms.
On topic, given the time available I agree with Mr E-i-T's last point; 'going after' Trump may well eat into legislative time, which would be better used on putting right some of the various wrongs. Surely it would be better, perhaps, to pass a censure resolution and then leave the States to prosecute for the various tax (and possibly other) offences he, and his family, appear to have committed. That would have the advantage of leaving him mired in legal and financial problems, and slowly and steadily diminishing him, rather than making him a victim.
A Clown Coup.
And that last year it was about the correct procedure for an eye test.
Not whether or not there’s an actual coup in progress led by a lunatic and supported by those who believe in the lizard people.
Why? It makes the site unusable.
Mr. Doethur, it's only two years ago since the Shadow Chancellor was a man who openly praised rioting thugs, and the current Home Secretary is Priti Patel.
It's a pretty low bar to clear if "the legislature has not been stormed" becomes the threshold of comfort.
But they are not Donald Trump. Which is acceptable under the circumstances.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/25/priti-patel-kept-up-anti-lawyer-rhetoric-after-met-warning-on-terror
Although it might be her conflict of interest over Israel.
Off topic, wildly off topic, but am I alone in feeling unreasonably pressured to stop drinking alcohol, against what I feel is my better judgement. Neither Mrs C nor I drink a lot; glass of wine before and another with our evening meal most days. Rarely spirits, and if we do they often replace one of wines.
And we feel it complements the meal.
And at least once a week we don't have anything at all.
I sleep better than I could have imagined itoo.
I stopped smoking on a sudden decision and haven't had a cigarette for 7.5 yrs. You could call that peer pressure as there is considerable societal pressure to cease smoking. And a jolly good thing too, as is ramping up the tax on cigarettes!