A day without stupid?

[Elixir]

Okay.



Alright... pretty consistent here.

The Rigged Russia Witch Hunt did not come into play, even a little bit, with respect to my decision on Don McGahn!

Okay, wait... what? Your "decision on Don McGahn"?

You mean that you are the reason he is leaving his position?

President Ellipses, please meet Freudian Slip.

He meant "...my decision to try to make it appear that it was my decision".

You should be a lot more fluent in Trumpanzese by now!

 

[blastula]

McGahn found out he was leaving by tweet.

 

[Keith&Co.]

McGahn found out he was leaving by tweet.

So it WAS mutual.
Trump sent the tweet, McGahn read it.. it does take two to twitter

 

[DrZoidberg]

But now his base hates Google, so the tweet has had the desired effect.

It is close to the point where his Twitter Feed will be the exclusive location for truth.

When do people at Twitter start asking "Why are we giving a platform to a fascist?" Not just giving him a platform, but that platform is specifically used by said fascist as his top communications tool to send out dog whistles and instructions to his zombie army. Will history look back and wonder if media companies were complicit? The ones who helped propel him into office as well as the ones who provide him the technology to do his own PR? Strange times, to say the least.

Maybe it's just me, but anybody who deplatforms anybody for their political opinions is the fascist and deserves to be burned at the stakes for their hatred of democracy. I find it truly depressing that defenders of free speech are increasingly being seen as old fossils who need to get with the times.

It's reached the point where I'm ready to have my blood spilled to defend Trump's right to say his retarded garbage on Twitter. The problem isn't Trump. It never was. The problem is his followers, and the fact that he's retardation gains traction. That's not his fault, nor because of his amazing rhetorical skill. Silencing Trump is not going to solve anything.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When do people at Twitter start asking "Why are we giving a platform to a fascist?" Not just giving him a platform, but that platform is specifically used by said fascist as his top communications tool to send out dog whistles and instructions to his zombie army. Will history look back and wonder if media companies were complicit? The ones who helped propel him into office as well as the ones who provide him the technology to do his own PR? Strange times, to say the least.

Maybe it's just me, but anybody who deplatforms anybody for their political opinions is the fascist and deserves to be burned at the stakes for their hatred of democracy. I find it truly depressing that defenders of free speech are increasingly being seen as old fossils who need to get with the times.

It's reached the point where I'm ready to have my blood spilled to defend Trump's right to say his retarded garbage on Twitter.

Okay, there is so much wrong with your statement here. Let's make something clear, saying:

I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.” @TuckerCarlson

or

What’s going on at @CNN is happening, to different degrees, at other networks - with @NBCNews being the worst. The good news is that Andy Lack is about to be fired(?) for incompetence, and much worse. When Lester Holt got caught fudging my tape on Russia, they were hurt badly!

...is not political speech and represents a multiple layered set of serious problems that make one question whether the man is fit to discharge the requirements of the office, forget about being allowed to post on Twitter.

The tweet about massacred white farmers has the following issues:

1. It isn't true.
2. It is white extremist propaganda.
3. It indicates Trump is getting his intelligence reports from Fox News!
4. He publicly states he is having the SoS look into it instead of commenting on it after the SoS has looked into it.

This is just so unbelievably wrong!

The second tweet is very bothersome and not political (it deals with... well... himself). It claims that not only did NBC doctor his interview with Lester Holt (where Trump admitted to obstruction of justice), he indicates that NBC was caught, and that NBC suffered consequences for their unethical act. If Trump were anyone else, he'd likely could be sued and would easily lose.

And the speech above is not political, it is accusatory, slander, white supremacist propaganda. And the reason he isn't getting into legal trouble over it is because the President can get away with this, as there is no settled law on what a President can be sued for regarding defamation and slander. So when you say you are ready to spill blood to protect his right to speech, you need to keep in mind, most of the speech we are talking about would be against the law for most other Americans.

I am extremely uncomfortable even thinking about whether the POTUS should be banned on Twitter. It shouldn't be necessary. Banning people from media is a bad thing. However, in a Democracy, the sociopaths are always there violating the bounds of decency which lead to these sorts of things. And Trump is the most powerful sociopath in the the US since probably Hearst. Trump is exposing just how easy it can be to throw tradition and protocol aside. He is reminding us how despots get popularly elected in the first place. Trump could be the greatest test on our nation since the Civil War.

The problem isn't Trump. It never was. The problem is his followers, and the fact that he's retardation gains traction. That's not his fault, nor because of his amazing rhetorical skill. Silencing Trump is not going to solve anything.

The followers are a BIG part of the problem, but Trump is a big piece as well. He is actively deconstructing our democracy, our fourth estate, our leadership role in the world, and alliances with nations we've been close to for a century plus. It truly is amazing how a man who has done so much by doing so little. We aren't even certain the longevity to the consequences of his actions yet.

 

[Elixir]

Maybe Twitter, rather than banning Emperor Shitgibbon, should place a disclaimer on all his tweets, letting people know that there is no factual basis for any claims made therein and that it is a white nationalist propaganda piece.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe Twitter, rather than banning Emperor Shitgibbon, should place a disclaimer on all his tweets, letting people know that there is no factual basis for any claims made therein and that it is a white nationalist propaganda piece.

Twitter can't do anything. The ultimate problem is that enough Americans voted for this atrocity of a candidate that he managed to become President and he is fucking things up, much like was feared. His posts on Twitter are exactly what should have been expected, and is it really Twitter's job to fix a problem the American electorate created?

First World Problems About Elected Third World Quality Leaders

 

[Angry Floof]

Maybe Twitter, rather than banning Emperor Shitgibbon, should place a disclaimer on all his tweets, letting people know that there is no factual basis for any claims made therein and that it is a white nationalist propaganda piece.

Twitter can't do anything. The ultimate problem is that enough Americans voted for this atrocity of a candidate that he managed to become President and he is fucking things up, much like was feared. His posts on Twitter are exactly what should have been expected, and is it really Twitter's job to fix a problem the American electorate created?

First World Problems About Elected Third World Quality Leaders

I don't think it's their job. I'm just wondering if, in hindsight later, we just notice things that could have been done differently, and actually work on things like whether blatant incitement counts as protected free speech. We clearly have not figured that one out yet in this information world loaded with "free speech" and "patriots."

I don't put any more blame or responsibility on Twitter than I do on any of the Good Germans in the 40s. As horrifying as the consequences were, we understand something of the sociology and psychology of what made people go along with atrocity one by one, bit by bit, because they didn't want to make waves.

 

[Elixir]

Maybe Twitter, rather than banning Emperor Shitgibbon, should place a disclaimer on all his tweets, letting people know that there is no factual basis for any claims made therein and that it is a white nationalist propaganda piece.

Twitter can't do anything. The ultimate problem is that enough Americans voted for this atrocity of a candidate that he managed to become President and he is fucking things up, much like was feared. His posts on Twitter are exactly what should have been expected, and is it really Twitter's job to fix a problem the American electorate created?

First World Problems About Elected Third World Quality Leaders

I don't think it's their job. I'm just wondering if, in hindsight later, we just notice things that could have been done differently, and actually work on things like whether blatant incitement counts as protected free speech. We clearly have not figured that one out yet in this information world loaded with "free speech" and "patriots."

I don't put any more blame or responsibility on Twitter than I do on any of the Good Germans in the 40s. As horrifying as the consequences were, we understand something of the sociology and psychology of what made people go along with atrocity one by one, bit by bit, because they didn't want to make waves.

Yeah yeah ... it's not their job to punch President Shitforbrains in the mouth either. (But whoever's job it is, is falling down on the job. )
We do know from prior experience (aka history) that people WILL go along with atrocity, as long as they are assured by an authoritarian "leader" that it's okay. We KNOW that.
So, do we just sit on our hands while people are led to accept atrocity because we're a "free society", and keep telling ourselves that anyone should be allowed to lead people to atrocity it they can?

Even if Dems take control of both houses of Congress, I don't believe they're going to undertake change to the extent that would keep a character like Cheato from perpetrating atrocities.

 

[Angry Floof]

I don't think it's their job. I'm just wondering if, in hindsight later, we just notice things that could have been done differently, and actually work on things like whether blatant incitement counts as protected free speech. We clearly have not figured that one out yet in this information world loaded with "free speech" and "patriots."

I don't put any more blame or responsibility on Twitter than I do on any of the Good Germans in the 40s. As horrifying as the consequences were, we understand something of the sociology and psychology of what made people go along with atrocity one by one, bit by bit, because they didn't want to make waves.

Yeah yeah ... it's not their job to punch President Shitforbrains in the mouth either. (But whoever's job it is, is falling down on the job. )
We do know from prior experience (aka history) that people WILL go along with atrocity, as long as they are assured by an authoritarian "leader" that it's okay. We KNOW that.
So, do we just sit on our hands while people are led to accept atrocity because we're a "free society", and keep telling ourselves that anyone should be allowed to lead people to atrocity it they can?

Even if Dems take control of both houses of Congress, I don't believe they're going to undertake change to the extent that would keep a character like Cheato from perpetrating atrocities.

This guy has tons of useful thoughts related to this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nEmBmGK5kM&feature=youtu.be

 

[Underseer]

I don't think it's their job. I'm just wondering if, in hindsight later, we just notice things that could have been done differently, and actually work on things like whether blatant incitement counts as protected free speech. We clearly have not figured that one out yet in this information world loaded with "free speech" and "patriots."

I don't put any more blame or responsibility on Twitter than I do on any of the Good Germans in the 40s. As horrifying as the consequences were, we understand something of the sociology and psychology of what made people go along with atrocity one by one, bit by bit, because they didn't want to make waves.

Yeah yeah ... it's not their job to punch President Shitforbrains in the mouth either. (But whoever's job it is, is falling down on the job. )
We do know from prior experience (aka history) that people WILL go along with atrocity, as long as they are assured by an authoritarian "leader" that it's okay. We KNOW that.
So, do we just sit on our hands while people are led to accept atrocity because we're a "free society", and keep telling ourselves that anyone should be allowed to lead people to atrocity it they can?

Even if Dems take control of both houses of Congress, I don't believe they're going to undertake change to the extent that would keep a character like Cheato from perpetrating atrocities.

The Democratic establishment is going to do what they always do when they take power: everything possible to appease the fascists. Because if we can just make the Democratic party conservative enough and appease them in the right way, they will stop trying to destroy America.

Because appeasement always works on fascists.

Anyway, on a related note, Irish people explain how excited they are that Trump is going there in November:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...t-welcome-twitter_us_5b8a5a6ae4b0cf7b00365448

Are we tired of winning yet? Wasn't electing Trump supposed to restore America's reputation in the world and cause the other nations to respect us again?

 

[Underseer]

I don't think it's their job. I'm just wondering if, in hindsight later, we just notice things that could have been done differently, and actually work on things like whether blatant incitement counts as protected free speech. We clearly have not figured that one out yet in this information world loaded with "free speech" and "patriots."

I don't put any more blame or responsibility on Twitter than I do on any of the Good Germans in the 40s. As horrifying as the consequences were, we understand something of the sociology and psychology of what made people go along with atrocity one by one, bit by bit, because they didn't want to make waves.

Yeah yeah ... it's not their job to punch President Shitforbrains in the mouth either. (But whoever's job it is, is falling down on the job. )
We do know from prior experience (aka history) that people WILL go along with atrocity, as long as they are assured by an authoritarian "leader" that it's okay. We KNOW that.
So, do we just sit on our hands while people are led to accept atrocity because we're a "free society", and keep telling ourselves that anyone should be allowed to lead people to atrocity it they can?

Even if Dems take control of both houses of Congress, I don't believe they're going to undertake change to the extent that would keep a character like Cheato from perpetrating atrocities.

This guy has tons of useful thoughts related to this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nEmBmGK5kM&feature=youtu.be

That was an amazing lecture. Thanks for sharing. that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Okay, there is so much wrong with your statement here. Let's make something clear, saying:

I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.” @TuckerCarlson

or

What’s going on at @CNN is happening, to different degrees, at other networks - with @NBCNews being the worst. The good news is that Andy Lack is about to be fired(?) for incompetence, and much worse. When Lester Holt got caught fudging my tape on Russia, they were hurt badly!

...is not political speech and represents a multiple layered set of serious problems that make one question whether the man is fit to discharge the requirements of the office, forget about being allowed to post on Twitter.

The tweet about massacred white farmers has the following issues:

1. It isn't true.
2. It is white extremist propaganda.
3. It indicates Trump is getting his intelligence reports from Fox News!
4. He publicly states he is having the SoS look into it instead of commenting on it after the SoS has looked into it.

This is just so unbelievably wrong!

The second tweet is very bothersome and not political (it deals with... well... himself). It claims that not only did NBC doctor his interview with Lester Holt (where Trump admitted to obstruction of justice), he indicates that NBC was caught, and that NBC suffered consequences for their unethical act. If Trump were anyone else, he'd likely could be sued and would easily lose.

And the speech above is not political, it is accusatory, slander, white supremacist propaganda. And the reason he isn't getting into legal trouble over it is because the President can get away with this, as there is no settled law on what a President can be sued for regarding defamation and slander. So when you say you are ready to spill blood to protect his right to speech, you need to keep in mind, most of the speech we are talking about would be against the law for most other Americans.

I am extremely uncomfortable even thinking about whether the POTUS should be banned on Twitter. It shouldn't be necessary. Banning people from media is a bad thing. However, in a Democracy, the sociopaths are always there violating the bounds of decency which lead to these sorts of things. And Trump is the most powerful sociopath in the the US since probably Hearst. Trump is exposing just how easy it can be to throw tradition and protocol aside. He is reminding us how despots get popularly elected in the first place. Trump could be the greatest test on our nation since the Civil War.

The problem isn't Trump. It never was. The problem is his followers, and the fact that he's retardation gains traction. That's not his fault, nor because of his amazing rhetorical skill. Silencing Trump is not going to solve anything.

The followers are a BIG part of the problem, but Trump is a big piece as well. He is actively deconstructing our democracy, our fourth estate, our leadership role in the world, and alliances with nations we've been close to for a century plus. It truly is amazing how a man who has done so much by doing so little. We aren't even certain the longevity to the consequences of his actions yet.

So what? Why does any of this mean that we must kill democracy? Yup, that's the alternative. He is a political leader of a country. It's our jobs as citizens not to trust him. We use the fourth estate to help us with this.

Today with social media, the fourth estate is blended with ordinary citizens, and in the case of Trump, blended with the person that it should control.

We have all required tools at our disposal to solve this within the system. So lets do that instead, ie make fun of him at every opportunity. I'm uncomfortable with killing free speech.

The world isn't made better by only allowing nice people to speak

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, there is so much wrong with your statement here. Let's make something clear, saying:


or



...is not political speech and represents a multiple layered set of serious problems that make one question whether the man is fit to discharge the requirements of the office, forget about being allowed to post on Twitter.

The tweet about massacred white farmers has the following issues:

1. It isn't true.
2. It is white extremist propaganda.
3. It indicates Trump is getting his intelligence reports from Fox News!
4. He publicly states he is having the SoS look into it instead of commenting on it after the SoS has looked into it.

This is just so unbelievably wrong!

The second tweet is very bothersome and not political (it deals with... well... himself). It claims that not only did NBC doctor his interview with Lester Holt (where Trump admitted to obstruction of justice), he indicates that NBC was caught, and that NBC suffered consequences for their unethical act. If Trump were anyone else, he'd likely could be sued and would easily lose.

And the speech above is not political, it is accusatory, slander, white supremacist propaganda. And the reason he isn't getting into legal trouble over it is because the President can get away with this, as there is no settled law on what a President can be sued for regarding defamation and slander. So when you say you are ready to spill blood to protect his right to speech, you need to keep in mind, most of the speech we are talking about would be against the law for most other Americans.

I am extremely uncomfortable even thinking about whether the POTUS should be banned on Twitter. It shouldn't be necessary. Banning people from media is a bad thing. However, in a Democracy, the sociopaths are always there violating the bounds of decency which lead to these sorts of things. And Trump is the most powerful sociopath in the the US since probably Hearst. Trump is exposing just how easy it can be to throw tradition and protocol aside. He is reminding us how despots get popularly elected in the first place. Trump could be the greatest test on our nation since the Civil War.

The problem isn't Trump. It never was. The problem is his followers, and the fact that he's retardation gains traction. That's not his fault, nor because of his amazing rhetorical skill. Silencing Trump is not going to solve anything.

The followers are a BIG part of the problem, but Trump is a big piece as well. He is actively deconstructing our democracy, our fourth estate, our leadership role in the world, and alliances with nations we've been close to for a century plus. It truly is amazing how a man who has done so much by doing so little. We aren't even certain the longevity to the consequences of his actions yet.

So what? Why does any of this mean that we must kill democracy? Yup, that's the alternative. He is a political leader of a country. It's our jobs as citizens not to trust him. We use the fourth estate to help us with this.

Today with social media, the fourth estate is blended with ordinary citizens, and in the case of Trump, blended with the person that it should control.

We have all required tools at our disposal to solve this within the system. So lets do that instead, ie make fun of him at every opportunity. I'm uncomfortable with killing free speech.

The world isn't made better by only allowing nice people to speak

You apparently didn’t read my post.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So what? Why does any of this mean that we must kill democracy? Yup, that's the alternative. He is a political leader of a country. It's our jobs as citizens not to trust him. We use the fourth estate to help us with this.

Today with social media, the fourth estate is blended with ordinary citizens, and in the case of Trump, blended with the person that it should control.

We have all required tools at our disposal to solve this within the system. So lets do that instead, ie make fun of him at every opportunity. I'm uncomfortable with killing free speech.

The world isn't made better by only allowing nice people to speak

You apparently didn’t read my post.

Yes, I did. I just thought a couple steps further than you did.

 

[Underseer]

Okay, there is so much wrong with your statement here. Let's make something clear, saying:


or



...is not political speech and represents a multiple layered set of serious problems that make one question whether the man is fit to discharge the requirements of the office, forget about being allowed to post on Twitter.

The tweet about massacred white farmers has the following issues:

1. It isn't true.
2. It is white extremist propaganda.
3. It indicates Trump is getting his intelligence reports from Fox News!
4. He publicly states he is having the SoS look into it instead of commenting on it after the SoS has looked into it.

This is just so unbelievably wrong!

The second tweet is very bothersome and not political (it deals with... well... himself). It claims that not only did NBC doctor his interview with Lester Holt (where Trump admitted to obstruction of justice), he indicates that NBC was caught, and that NBC suffered consequences for their unethical act. If Trump were anyone else, he'd likely could be sued and would easily lose.

And the speech above is not political, it is accusatory, slander, white supremacist propaganda. And the reason he isn't getting into legal trouble over it is because the President can get away with this, as there is no settled law on what a President can be sued for regarding defamation and slander. So when you say you are ready to spill blood to protect his right to speech, you need to keep in mind, most of the speech we are talking about would be against the law for most other Americans.

I am extremely uncomfortable even thinking about whether the POTUS should be banned on Twitter. It shouldn't be necessary. Banning people from media is a bad thing. However, in a Democracy, the sociopaths are always there violating the bounds of decency which lead to these sorts of things. And Trump is the most powerful sociopath in the the US since probably Hearst. Trump is exposing just how easy it can be to throw tradition and protocol aside. He is reminding us how despots get popularly elected in the first place. Trump could be the greatest test on our nation since the Civil War.

The problem isn't Trump. It never was. The problem is his followers, and the fact that he's retardation gains traction. That's not his fault, nor because of his amazing rhetorical skill. Silencing Trump is not going to solve anything.

The followers are a BIG part of the problem, but Trump is a big piece as well. He is actively deconstructing our democracy, our fourth estate, our leadership role in the world, and alliances with nations we've been close to for a century plus. It truly is amazing how a man who has done so much by doing so little. We aren't even certain the longevity to the consequences of his actions yet.

So what? Why does any of this mean that we must kill democracy? Yup, that's the alternative. He is a political leader of a country. It's our jobs as citizens not to trust him. We use the fourth estate to help us with this.

Today with social media, the fourth estate is blended with ordinary citizens, and in the case of Trump, blended with the person that it should control.

We have all required tools at our disposal to solve this within the system. So lets do that instead, ie make fun of him at every opportunity. I'm uncomfortable with killing free speech.

The world isn't made better by only allowing nice people to speak

He's not saying that we should kill democracy because of what Trump did, he's saying that Trump is undermining the institutions that make democracy as we know it possible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So what? Why does any of this mean that we must kill democracy? Yup, that's the alternative. He is a political leader of a country. It's our jobs as citizens not to trust him. We use the fourth estate to help us with this.

Today with social media, the fourth estate is blended with ordinary citizens, and in the case of Trump, blended with the person that it should control.

We have all required tools at our disposal to solve this within the system. So lets do that instead, ie make fun of him at every opportunity. I'm uncomfortable with killing free speech.

The world isn't made better by only allowing nice people to speak

You apparently didn’t read my post.

Yes, I did. I just thought a couple steps further than you did.

Quite a few more than a couple.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So what? Why does any of this mean that we must kill democracy? Yup, that's the alternative. He is a political leader of a country. It's our jobs as citizens not to trust him. We use the fourth estate to help us with this.

Today with social media, the fourth estate is blended with ordinary citizens, and in the case of Trump, blended with the person that it should control.

We have all required tools at our disposal to solve this within the system. So lets do that instead, ie make fun of him at every opportunity. I'm uncomfortable with killing free speech.

The world isn't made better by only allowing nice people to speak

He's not saying that we should kill democracy because of what Trump did, he's saying that Trump is undermining the institutions that make democracy as we know it possible.

I don't agree that he's the one doing it. Old media, in general, failed to adapt to the new challenges posed by Internet and social media. Trump just did this better.

If you remember, this is what Hitler did. Radio and film was a new way of conveying a message with a much more powerfull emotional impact. The old established parties were too snobbish to sink to the level of emotional manipulation like that. He won on walk over. After Hitler all political parties around the world copied the style of Nazi propaganda. And that was essentially the dominant paradigm up until Trump.

I remember when Obama was in power. We criticised him for being too slick. That he was a great rhetorician but essentially more of the same, ie no we can't.

Marketing in the Internet age is shifting from the transparent bullshitting of the old paradigm, to slashing old media advertising budgets to guerrilla marketing and social media campaigns.

What consumers appreciate today is perceived intimacy with the company. They want to feel like part of a family. And that means it has to feel authentic. We don't want the failures covered up. We don't want it too slick. We want perceived honesty and people talking from their hearts.

I think that's the real secret to why Trump won. Hillary was the old style of politician, who talked without saying anything. Giving a long winded waffly answer when pressed on something she'd prefer not to be asked.

I think we'll get a new breed of politician. Politicians who copy Trump's style. I think there's no way back.

Obviously Trump won't have much of a legacy, since he's an ineffective politician. But I think his style of communicating will endure. Ie fast and loose with facts.

We don't need to do anything. I think this is a problem that solves itself. Until it does, let's not fuck with free speech

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm not sure if this is stupid or another category.

Trump attacking Sessions because two 'very popular' GOP members are being prosecuted. Because it'll hurt the Republicans in the midterm elections....
The investigations leading to these charges go back one or two years. It's not like they threw darts at a map of the seats in Congress, and spun the wheel for today's charges on Friday, and spent the weekend pulling the papers together...

But in any case, shouldn't Trump be mad at the GOP members? For their behavior? Wouldn't a more rational response have been, "If these charges are true, YOU GUYS are hurting the party!" Not the Justice Department for doing their job.

Clearly,he doesn't care if they're guilty, as long as he can pack Congress with people who will not support impeaching him...
I wonder if there should be a thread, not 'stupid' as much as 'revealing.'

Something along the lines of 'Dude, innocent people don't say that' or 'Guilty fucker says what...'

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The question is are such Tweets crimes of Obstruction of Justice.