Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

fullstop

Tea drinker wrote: »

Sure why would ye bring up the 100K deaths

Did I? Let me know where I did, cause I must have missed it.

aloyisious

Blueshoe wrote: »

Most people make the comparison as cases per million or deaths per million since countries have vastly different populations.
Then you have to look at the infrastructure of the compared countries. How many planes in the air, how densely populated are it's cities etc.

Compare different countries by this.

How would any comparison between what you have outlined above about other countries have any relevance to the ability of Trump to handle Covid-19 since its outbreak in the U.S and his re-election in Nov properly?

Do you think Trump, Fauci, Birx or Pompeo consider them relevant to the current U.S fight against the virus, over getting a cure for it?

BonnieSituation

Blueshoe wrote: »

Most people make the comparison as cases per million or deaths per million since countries have vastly different populations.
Then you have to look at the infrastructure of the compared countries. How many planes in the air, how densely populated are it's cities etc.

Compare different countries by this.

Like the infrastructure in Arkansas v New York?

Like say the infrastructure in black communities v white communities?

You make the best comparison that's possible, but you do that without an agenda, and you sir have an agenda.

Personally, the only real valid comparisons for the US for me are Japan and Germany given their wealth, development and size of population. Seems fair to me.

s1ippy

Using tear gas on civilians protesting an unlawful killing of an African American during a pandemic with respiratory implications. Have we reached peak America yet because they really need to stop fattening those curves.

BonnieSituation

s1ippy wrote: »

Using tear gas on civilians protesting an unlawful killing of an African American during a pandemic with respiratory implications. Have we reached peak America yet because they really need to stop fattening those curves.

It really is a good idea that got out of hand.

For the sake of the country Biden HAS to win.

So much stuff happens in America that if it were a poor "shíthole country" it would be scoffed at as "those people tsk tsk tsk".

That's how ridiculous this has gotten.

robinph

Twitter have blocked another one of his tweets for breaching their incitement to violence clause that still applies, even to dictators:

https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267446979129345?s=19

Quin_Dub

robinph wrote: »

Twitter have blocked another one of his tweets for breaching their incitement to violence clause that still applies, even to dictators:

https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267446979129345?s=19

Oh, this is going to get good...

Trumps executive order clearly hasn't made Twitter back down , that's for sure.

robinph

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Oh, this is going to get good...

Trumps executive order clearly hasn't made Twitter back down , that's for sure.

I don't get what the EO is meant to achieve. If it removes protection for social media as bejng the platform rather than the publisher of content then it's hardly going to make Twitter more open to having Trumps tweets on their system. They will just remove the stuff that they don't agree with if they are not protected from the stupid stuff their users say.

extra gravy

Blueshoe wrote: »

Here's an example of a current real world situation happening right now.

Trump supporters wearing combat gear and carrying weapons in an open carry state are allowed to protest without police intervention.

People are on the streets protesting the police murder of a black citizen who was suffocated by the knee of a police officer. The police have fired tear gas into the crowds and baton charged them.

People are saying the gun toting protestors were allowed to continue because they are white while the other group are being dispersed by force by the police because they are black. They are saying this is Trump's America etc.

The reality is that the first group of protestors didn't attack anyone or damage property and dispersed peacefully afterwards while the second group are burning down buildings, throwing stones, firing guns into the air and looting liquor and electronic stores.

See the difference. See the brainwashing. See the bias. See the level of entitlement. See the sh1thole that is America

"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots.

And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity."

Martin Luther King, 1967. Still relevant over 50 years later. Your views on the race issue are simplistic and ignorant.

Christy42

Blueshoe wrote: »

Really?
If a country has many planes in the air daily a virus has the potential to spread further and faster as more people are traveling.
Basic stuff.

Deaths per million Ireland has more. It's there to see

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Weird. Last time you brought up the per capita comparison you mentioned cases per million. You have decided to drop that for reasons (I am guessing the same reason you don't mention tests per million in either post).


On the twitter thing. All it looks more like Trump has forced twitter to moderate his tweets more. I mean if he starts tweeting out further false murder accusations could they see legal action against them by the family if they don't moderate his tweets?

pixelburp

s1ippy wrote: »

Using tear gas on civilians protesting an unlawful killing of an African American during a pandemic with respiratory implications. Have we reached peak America yet because they really need to stop fattening those curves.

Like mass shootings, this is a familiar, sad little narrative playing out: a black man is unlawfully killed again by police; a parsimonious, insulting response by the police is made; the grieving community explodes in anger and hits the streets to peacefully protest; inevitably, scrotes tangental to the community use it an excuse to riot; the police now have their pretext to confirm their biases and respond with aggression; Fox, Hannity and every Bad Faith debater uses said scrotes to confirm their lingering racism. "See? They're naturally violent, that's just what the cops have to deal with".

Nothing will change, nothing will be done. Whatever strategy these local police forces have regarding community policing clearly ain't working. And while the police continues to become more militarised, outfitted in more army surplus gear, this situation will only get worse and that divide more pronounced. "law and order" political candidates will simply dig in, side with the police.

Meanwhile, Trump's response is to throw a tantrum because Twitter won't let him be an a$$hole without the absolute bare minimum moderation from the service. Trump's going to war over a virtual post-it note. His self-esteem must be non existent, when you think about it. He must be so crushingly insecure about his image.

I can see why Charlie Brooker decided to pause Black Mirror for a while: nothing he can write can come close to the absurdist scenario playing out across the Atlantic.

looksee

It is very sad that a company and an individual should be forced into the position of having to make decisions about the appropriateness of a statement by a head of state and by extension, a government. However, Trump's casual racism, self absorbtion and total lack of any kind of leadership ability has created this situation; its a situation that is unprecedented in recent, democratic and first world circumstances. There is no bottom line to this pathetic little man's self indulgence and incompetence.

Stallingrad

Christy42 wrote: »

On the twitter thing. All it looks more like Trump has forced twitter to moderate his tweets more. I mean if he starts tweeting out further false murder accusations could they see legal action against them by the family if they don't moderate his tweets?

There could be something in this, and it could by why Zuckerburg is arguing so strongly for not being the arbiter of what is true and what is false on FB.

Christy42

looksee wrote: »

It is very sad that a company and an individual should be forced into the position of having to make decisions about the appropriateness of a statement by a head of state and by extension, a government. However, Trump's casual racism, self absorbtion and total lack of any kind of leadership ability has created this situation; its a situation that is unprecedented in recent, democratic and first world circumstances. There is no bottom line to this pathetic little man's self indulgence and incompetence.

He has called for a slaughter of his Americans on twitter. The man is great for finding even lower bars.


And before anyone talks about law breaking or rioters we didn't pump bullets into the love ulster parade riots. France doesn't on their regular issues. Countries don't react to riots with guns (well non authorial ones anyway).

FrostyJack

Rjd2 wrote: »

Trump will be gone in November and history won't be kind to his term , however his legacy will be no worse than George Bush a man who started an illegal war which destabilized a whole region, ignited ISIS, lead to thousands upon thousands killed...a war which David Frum played a huge role in selling to the American public.

And he is lecturing on the toxic legacy of Trump?, the absolute hypocrisy of this war monger is remarkable.

Trump may throw bombs from the sidelines, but not impossible he decides to look at how liberals are playing footsie with the neo-cons and use a similar grift, maybe now and then insult Hawley or whoever takes over.

Mainstream media loves George Bush now despite all those dead Iraqis, maybe Trump can get similar love from that crowd.

Frum many times, even in his book, declares he supported the War and says it was an absolute disastrous policy. Do I have to list all the people who supported the War in Iraq and Afghanistan? The list against it would be much shorter. He is a Republican so we don't agree much on policy but we do agree on facts. He has been on Bill Maher for years and even though he would be nearly always be on the opposing side of an argument, I liked him.

The mainstream media doesn't love Bush, they are harking back to the days of normal presidents, even with his massive flaws he is head and shoulders above Trump in every metric. 100,000 American's have died in the last 3 months, that is more than Vietnam, Korean and Iraq war combined, so in terms of American's Trump's death count is much higher than Bush's. The life expectancy of American's has reversed for the first time since the Spanish Flu pandemic (this is before Covid 19 added to it) under Trump , need I go on.

fullstop

Christy42 wrote: »

Weird. Last time you brought up the per capita comparison you mentioned cases per million. You have decided to drop that for reasons (I am guessing the same reason you don't mention tests per million in either post).


On the twitter thing. All it looks more like Trump has forced twitter to moderate his tweets more. I mean if he starts tweeting out further false murder accusations could they see legal action against them by the family if they don't moderate his tweets?

As the don himself mentioned though, there are many per capitas. Maybe blueshoe wasn’t sure per capita relative to what

Blueshoe

Blueshoe wrote: »

Really?
If a country has many planes in the air daily a virus has the potential to spread further and faster as more people are traveling.
Basic stuff.

Deaths per million Ireland has more. It's there to see

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Firstly there's a pretty reasonable chance that the real number of deaths is much higher for the US. They have more resources than any country in the globe to limit the spread of the virus. The president is even capable of calling a national lockdown. The reality is the federal government did very little and trump has made this all about him.

Christy42

Huh. I did not know the historical context behind the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts". Trump was quoting a threat to citizens from the 1967 Miami police chief when people were upset the police had terrorised a black teenager by the holding him over a bridge.

I had thought he was "merely" calling for a slaughter of Americans. Turns out he was combining for it a nice call back to 1960s American racism.

Quin_Dub

robinph wrote: »

I don't get what the EO is meant to achieve. If it removes protection for social media as bejng the platform rather than the publisher of content then it's hardly going to make Twitter more open to having Trumps tweets on their system. They will just remove the stuff that they don't agree with if they are not protected from the stupid stuff their users say.

It's meant to make him feel better and for it to make it look like he's a hard man to his followers.

In practice , it means next to Zero - The actual EO is utterly unenforceable and would fail under it's 1st inevitable legal challenge.

It's sabre rattling from a spoilt child.

MadYaker

Yeah the wording of it is a bit ambiguous, can’t really see what actual effects it would have. From Wall Street Journal:

“In es­sence, the White House or­der as­serts that tech com­pa­nies should lose their Sec­tion 230 pro­tec­tion if they take ac­tion to dis­crim­i­nate against users or limit their ac­cess to a plat­form with­out pro­vid­ing a fair hear­ing, or in ways that aren’t spelled out in the plat­form’s terms of ser­vice.

The or­der di­rects the Com­merce De­part-ment to pe­ti­tion the Fed­eral Com­mu­ni­ca-tions Com­mis­sion to set up a rule-mak­ing pro­ceed­ing to clar­ify the scope of Sec­tion 230. A key fo­cus of that pro­ceed­ing would be to de­ter­mine when plat­forms have failed to live up to their oblig­a­tions to act in “good faith” un­der the law when they po­lice con­tent.“

It has nothing to do with twitter fact checking trumps nonsense.

duploelabs

MadYaker wrote: »

Yeah the wording of it is a bit ambiguous, can’t really see what actual effects it would have. From Wall Street Journal:

“In es­sence, the White House or­der as­serts that tech com­pa­nies should lose their Sec­tion 230 pro­tec­tion if they take ac­tion to dis­crim­i­nate against users or limit their ac­cess to a plat­form with­out pro­vid­ing a fair hear­ing, or in ways that aren’t spelled out in the plat­form’s terms of ser­vice.

The or­der di­rects the Com­merce De­part-ment to pe­ti­tion the Fed­eral Com­mu­ni­ca-tions Com­mis­sion to set up a rule-mak­ing pro­ceed­ing to clar­ify the scope of Sec­tion 230. A key fo­cus of that pro­ceed­ing would be to de­ter­mine when plat­forms have failed to live up to their oblig­a­tions to act in “good faith” un­der the law when they po­lice con­tent.“

It has nothing to do with twitter fact checking trumps nonsense.

Height of irony when the Trump administration quotes 'fair play' and living up to their obligations

salmocab

I just heard Trump on the radio saying he’d like nothing more than to give up his Twitter account. If only there was a way to stop using Twitter. Think Don think!

hetuzozaho

Christy42 wrote: »

On the twitter thing. All it looks more like Trump has forced twitter to moderate his tweets more. I mean if he starts tweeting out further false murder accusations could they see legal action against them by the family if they don't moderate his tweets?

Is it that Twitter is not responsible for stuff we say on Twitter as they are not considered a publisher. But then they are kind of getting involved in what can be said on it's platform. So he thinks they should not have the protection if they are getting involved in what can be said?

Quin_Dub

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Is it that Twitter is not responsible for stuff we say on Twitter as they are not considered a publisher. But then they are kind of getting involved in what can be said on it's platform. So he thinks they should not have the protection if they are getting involved in what can be said?

Basically -Yes

Under current laws , Social Media can't really be sued for something that someone posted on their platform - There are obviously some exceptions but the burden of proof makes it almost impossible for Social Media to be found guilty for something someone else did.

For example , right now Joe Scarborough couldn't sue Twitter for Trumps posts accusing him of Murder , he can sue Trump , but not Twitter.

It Trump got his way , Scarborough could then also sue Twitter and any other Social Media platform that displayed the Trump accusation.

The upshot of that law change (which will never actually happen BTW)- Twitter would simply delete Trumps account (and many many others) as he has a proven track record of stuff that could get them sued, to avoid future litigation.

aloyisious

MadYaker wrote: »

Yeah the wording of it is a bit ambiguous, can’t really see what actual effects it would have. From Wall Street Journal:

“In es­sence, the White House or­der as­serts that tech com­pa­nies should lose their Sec­tion 230 pro­tec­tion if they take ac­tion to dis­crim­i­nate against users or limit their ac­cess to a plat­form with­out pro­vid­ing a fair hear­ing, or in ways that aren’t spelled out in the plat­form’s terms of ser­vice.

The or­der di­rects the Com­merce De­part-ment to pe­ti­tion the Fed­eral Com­mu­ni­ca-tions Com­mis­sion to set up a rule-mak­ing pro­ceed­ing to clar­ify the scope of Sec­tion 230. A key fo­cus of that pro­ceed­ing would be to de­ter­mine when plat­forms have failed to live up to their oblig­a­tions to act in “good faith” un­der the law when they po­lice con­tent.“

It has nothing to do with twitter fact checking trumps nonsense.

So the journal think's he'd be relying on the public service and the regulatory body, both of which he's made clear he doesn't like, to set up a committee to rule on what the internet platform Co's can do in terms of regulating content on their platforms?

That's a well thought out plan, if one wanted to merely make a point and pass the buck kick the can down the road. Good on the hidden Deep Stater who came up with it as I don't think Trump came up with it.

Christy42

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Is it that Twitter is not responsible for stuff we say on Twitter as they are not considered a publisher. But then they are kind of getting involved in what can be said on it's platform. So he thinks they should not have the protection if they are getting involved in what can be said?

The executive order is removing their protections against being responsible for things said on their site. Likely to fail in court due to twitters first amendment rights.

It seems weird to force them to moderate more because you dislike them moderating.

Twitter has had to moderate stuff for years. The original act gives does not give the total immunity and requires them to act in good faith. For instance stuff like his recent incitement to violence always needed moderating. Especially given he quoted a racist in encouraging the shooting of black people. All social media platforms have rules about what can be said on their platforms and have done for years. He is just upset because someone decided to apply a rule to him.

robinph

At the moment Twitter and Facebook are considered the equivalent of the telephone or postal system. They just provide the means to transmit the message, but are not responsible for what is in the message they deliver... unless you tell the post office that there is a bomb in the parcel you are sending then they are responsible for not delivering it.

What Twitter and Facebook don't want if to be made the equivalent of newspapers, TV or radio as they are responsible for all the content they print or transmit.

But Trump making Twitter and Facebook the same as TV and print media doesn't change the problems that he has. You then just end up with a Fox version of Twitter where Trump is taking to himself.

aloyisious

robinph wrote: »

At the moment Twitter and Facebook are considered the equivalent of the telephone or postal system. They just provide the means to transmit the message, but are not responsible for what is in the message they deliver... unless you tell the post office that there is a bomb in the parcel you are sending then they are responsible for not delivering it.

What Twitter and Facebook don't want if to be made the equivalent of newspapers, TV or radio as they are responsible for all the content they print or transmit.

But Trump making Twitter and Facebook the same as TV and print media doesn't change the problems that he has. You then just end up with a Fox version of Twitter where Trump is taking to himself.

If he succeeded in that, the platforms would probably have to go the way of the print media statement with disclaimers like "the opinion stated in this item does not reflect that of the platform - We are, under the 1st amendment right to free speech, obliged to publish the writers opinion-piece". That would enable mud-slinging with complete freedom, in Trump's direction.

banie01

aloyisious wrote: »

If he succeeded in that, the platforms would probably have to go the way of the print media statement with disclaimers like "the opinion stated in this item does not reflect that of the platform - We are, under the 1st amendment right to free speech, obliged to publish the writers opinion-piece".

The rub here is that invoking free or protected speech does not in any way guarantee a right to be published.

Many newspapers and periodicals will publish opinion pieces and label them as such, not from a legal obligation but some notion of equity and balance.

Platforms allow users to self publish.
Should platforms become publishers, that will not come with any inherent obligation to publish.
It allows a creep in censorship, and pushes the "responsibility" for it the platforms.

Trump using "free speech" to dictate to a company just how, when and what free speech is?

Is quite ironic in light of the stance taken by Trump and the NFL to simple protest.
Imagine if Kaepernick called for violence?
Or is that just the protected domain of El Presidenté!

omerin

Cnn reporter just arrested live on tv, you couldnt make it up