US Politics Thread

[FogBlueInSanFran]

for what its worth I think its all too late - I think where Pie has it wrong is not taking into account the likelihood that Trump will be too pre-occupied answering questions from various forces of law and order to be of any relevance - if its a choice between starting his own Parler or putting his efforts into not going to jail I know where Trump will be concentrating on.

I agree with that, yes. I don’t think this makes him stronger, nor any more of a “martyr” than he already was.

 

[Rascal]

This is not a good take IMO.

He was democratically defeated too. His lies about that, his willingness to spread them, and his utilization of the platform to incite an overthrow of said election are WHY he was banned.

Do you think he would have been banned if he’d just stood up and said, “Hey, I concede” at ANY point in the last two months?

The power of Twitter is a function of those that use it. If everyone people cared about didn’t use it, it wouldn’t have any power.

That is of no importance to me, it is the over reach of corporate power that i find disturbing.

If they can use that power to ban a President, who knows where the use of said power will end. If they can ban a President what is stopping them banning anyone that disagrees with their corporate stance. It doesn't have to be against the code of conduct it can be just the corporate entity pushing boundaries to see how far their influence on democracy can go.

I am not comfortable with what they have done, because I believe Democracy is far more important than a corporation's desires.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I am no lover of Trump, he is fucking nuts, but i am not comfortable with a democratically elected President being censored by a big tech corporation. I know it is there platform blah blah, but still it makes me uneasy that a Corporation can have so much power in a democracy.

It's a valid point of view, but when someone, whoever it is continues to violate the terms and conditions of a platform that has banned thousands of people for a whole lot less then there comes a point where they must act.

It's difficult as tech companies have essentially been affording users on their social media platforms the same privileges in terms of freedom of speech as say telephone users in that they can pretty much say what they want (to a point). They simply aren't regulated in the same way radio and TV companies are.

Trump was using Twitter (and other platforms) to whip his followers into a frenzy with lies and mistruths. I think Twitter made the decision to distance themselves from him in case it blows up big time and they are somehow held partially liable.

 

[west didsblue]

No, I can’t stand that self satisfied ****.

@bluethrunthru isn’t that bad!

 

[Summerbuzz]

The middle ground is where the wider tenets of democracy are recognised to be the unifying point for us all.

People need alternative options. It wouldn't work without at least two parties.

The idea that we can convert everyone to our way of thinking is ridiculous, childish stuff, that we're supposed to grow out of.

As is the idea that we have the right to tell them who they are and what they need. Persuade them. That's dangerous enough.

 

[Rascal]

Christ you don’t half talk some absolutely fucking shite.

Twitter is a private fucking company with published rules. Trump wasn’t banned because they don’t like him, he was banned for inciting violence and insurrection and even then only for 12 hours. He then went and did it again.

So yeah, ban the cûnt. Abso-fucking-lutely. Be concerned all you want, I couldn’t give a fuck and neither could Jack or anyone else that matters.

Holding those in office to the same rules as the rest of us isn’t oligarchy, you mental. It’s the opposite.

You missed out the word "****" after the word "mental"

Don't be so angry you sound like Donald.

 

[squirtyflower]

That is of no importance to me, it is the over reach of corporate power that i find disturbing.

If they can use that power to ban a President, who knows where the use of said power will end. If they can ban a President what is stopping them banning anyone that disagrees with their corporate stance. It doesn't have to be against the code of conduct it can be just the corporate entity pushing boundaries to see how far their influence on democracy can go.

I am not comfortable with what they have done, because I believe Democracy is far more important than a corporation's desires.

I’ve read a lot of posts in here eulogising over the Big Tech’s banning of certain topics.
That’s all well and good when you are against or dislike those topics but what will they feel when it’s their turn to be banned on the whim of some billionaire’s company?

Unfortunately democracy is a messy business and we need to hear all sides of an argument. If it’s clearly a bad argument then the sane people amongst us will say so. Democracy has taken a real hammering.

 

[mat]

 

[kaz7]

I’d imagine there will be quite a few Capitol Police finding they don’t have a job come Monday.

Wow , so many white police helped them in, they need a clean sweep

Fucking lunatics

I was just watching that on the news , if i could have got my gun out i would have shot the fucker in the balls

 

[kaz7]

I am no lover of Trump, he is fucking nuts, but i am not comfortable with a democratically elected President being censored by a big tech corporation. I know it is there platform blah blah, but still it makes me uneasy that a Corporation can have so much power in a democracy.

He still has the POTUS account , he is the most powerful man in the world and they let him call to action a few thousand people to incite a riot , i would of knee capped him as well