Donald Trump

Jearlpam0925

I've been thinking about this. I think what the publishing company does is strictly a business decision, and they live or die on what they, well, publish. That's their P&L. That's not free speech.

Now, I've got a slightly different stance on Twitter/Facebook/etc. I'm glad they took him off, and that could be justified as a business decision, but the difference to me is they are a platform and not a publishing company. I think there should be more demanded of these companies to have a transparent process that they can easily refer to in justifying the ban. One could argue companies could boycott Twitter/Facebook/IG/whatever by pulling their advertisements, but regardless I think more needs to be demanded from platforms instead of publishing companies. It just opens them up in the future for some bad, bad stuff. 

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

Gern Blansten said:

I still can't figure out why Pence won't entertain the 25A angle.  I mean the fucker almost got him killed. 

Maybe he thinks the cult will kill him if he does.

I think you need to have the votes,  it at least close,  before you put that out there.  I still don't know which cabinet members would vote.  And if acting members are eligible. 

Interesting point.  When Pence said he didn't want the 25th he probably figured it would never get that far, so why put himself out there to anger the mob over what amounts to a hypothetical?

HughFreakingDillon

Jearlpam0925 said:

I've been thinking about this. I think what the publishing company does is strictly a business decision, and they live or die on what they, well, publish. That's their P&L. That's not free speech.

Now, I've got a slightly different stance on Twitter/Facebook/etc. I'm glad they took him off, and that could be justified as a business decision, but the difference to me is they are a platform and not a publishing company. I think there should be more demanded of these companies to have a transparent process that they can easily refer to in justifying the ban. One could argue companies could boycott Twitter/Facebook/IG/whatever by pulling their advertisements, but regardless I think more needs to be demanded from platforms instead of publishing companies. It just opens them up in the future for some bad, bad stuff. 

twitter has clear terms of service, and they have put out official statements in the past that trump has clearly violated those terms, but in the interest of public awareness, they didn't ban him. but they clearly draw the line at inciting violence. 

this should be of no surprise to anyone.  

Gern Blansten

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

Gern Blansten said:

I still can't figure out why Pence won't entertain the 25A angle.  I mean the fucker almost got him killed. 

Maybe he thinks the cult will kill him if he does.

I think you need to have the votes,  it at least close,  before you put that out there.  I still don't know which cabinet members would vote.  And if acting members are eligible. 

Interesting point.  When Pence said he didn't want the 25th he probably figured it would never get that far, so why put himself out there to anger the mob over what amounts to a hypothetical?

It just seems like he would score huge points in the party for taking charge and doing that.  The GOP would likely not win any major election for awhile since the party would break 60% GOP and 40% Q/Patriot party but holy shit....he has to know that is the best solution.

Jearlpam0925

HughFreakingDillon said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

I've been thinking about this. I think what the publishing company does is strictly a business decision, and they live or die on what they, well, publish. That's their P&L. That's not free speech.

Now, I've got a slightly different stance on Twitter/Facebook/etc. I'm glad they took him off, and that could be justified as a business decision, but the difference to me is they are a platform and not a publishing company. I think there should be more demanded of these companies to have a transparent process that they can easily refer to in justifying the ban. One could argue companies could boycott Twitter/Facebook/IG/whatever by pulling their advertisements, but regardless I think more needs to be demanded from platforms instead of publishing companies. It just opens them up in the future for some bad, bad stuff. 

twitter has clear terms of service, and they have put out official statements in the past that trump has clearly violated those terms, but in the interest of public awareness, they didn't ban him. but they clearly draw the line at inciting violence. 

this should be of no surprise to anyone.  

There is a difference though, and those terms of service can be arbitrary where it's up to the company. My point is I have less of an issue with a publishing company because the line is pretty clear. Twitter and other social media platforms are way more opaque.

In the future, say Twitter has a competitor of some sort (making this up) that they ban for speaking their mind (without inciting violence) for no other reason than there being a conflict of interest. Or, in this hypothetical made up world, that Jack Dorsey was a masochist - or a Trump supporter for whatever reason - and wanted to see the world burn, then he very well could have if he wanted. I'm just saying if you look their terms of service and their process for banning isn't cut and dry. Additionally, there's a point where a company isn't just a company - Facebook has on average 3 billion users daily. That's crazy, and goes beyond a company just being a company - they can systemically change societies.

Halifax2TheMax

From NYT email blast:

‘Honor, Trust or Profit’

If the House impeaches President Trump this week, it will still have almost no effect on how long he remains in office. His term expires nine days from now, and even the most rapid conceivable Senate trial would cover much of that time.

But the impeachment debate is still highly consequential. The Senate has the power both to remove Trump from office and to prevent him from holding office in the future. That second power will not expire when his term ends, many constitutional scholars say. A Senate trial can happen after Jan. 20.

And disqualifying Trump from holding office again could alter the future of American politics.

It’s worth pausing for a moment to reflect on how radical a figure Trump is. He rejects basic foundations of American government that other presidents, from both parties, have accepted for decades.

He has tried to reverse an election result and remain in power by persuading local officials to commit fraud. He incited a mob that attacked the Capitol — and killed a police officer — while Congress was meeting to certify the result. Afterward, Trump praised the rioters.

This behavior was consistent with Trump’s entire presidency. He has previously rejected the legitimacy of election results and encouraged his supporters to commit violence. He has tried to undermine Americans’ confidence in the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the military, Justice Department prosecutors, federal judges, the Congressional Budget Office, government scientists, government health officials and more. He has openly used the presidency to enrich his family.

In the simplest terms, Trump seems to believe a president should be able to do whatever he wants. He does not appear to believe in the system of the government that the Constitution prescribes — a democratic republic.

Yet there is a significant chance he could win the presidency again, in 2024. He remains popular with many Republican voters, and the Electoral College currently gives a big advantage to Republicans. If he is not disqualified from future office, Trump could dominate the Republican Party and shape American politics for the next four years.

If he is disqualified, it’s impossible to know what would happen, but this much is clear: A singularly popular figure who rejects the basic tenets of American democracy would no longer be eligible to lead it.

What are the basics of disqualification?

• Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution says: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

• The Constitution does not specify whether disqualification requires a two-thirds Senate vote, as conviction in an impeachment trial does, or only a majority vote. The Senate has previously used a majority vote.

• The Senate has barred three people, all federal judges, from holding future office: West Humphreys (in 1862, for waging war against the U.S.), Robert Archbald (in 1913, for corruption) and Thomas Porteous (in 2010, for bribery and perjury).

• The Senate has tried a former War Department secretary — William Belknap, in 1876 — after he resigned. Both the House and the Senate decided that Belknap could be tried after he had left office.

• Disqualifying a president from future office, because of the stakes and lack of precedent, would probably come before the Supreme Court. History suggests that the court would be more likely to uphold a bipartisan congressional vote than a largely partisan one.

• For more: “If an impeachment begins when an individual is in office, the process may surely continue after they resign or otherwise depart,” Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law writes in the online publication Just Security.

Lerxst1992

.

Gern Blansten

Twitter is no different than this forum.  Obey the rules or you won't get to post here.

mickeyrat

Article of Impeachment has been introduced....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/11/trump-impeachment-biden-transition-live-updates/

By

John Wagner and 

Paulina Firozi

Jan. 11, 2021 at 11:15 a.m. EST

House Democrats on Monday formally introduced an article of impeachment against President Trump, charging him with “incitement of insurrection” for his role in the takeover of the U.S. Capitol last week by a violent pro-Trump mob. The House could vote as early as Wednesday.

House Republicans blocked a measure calling on Vice President Pence and the Cabinet to remove Trump under the 25th Amendment, a move that ensures a vote in the full House on Tuesday.

President-elect Joe Biden, meanwhile, announced that he plans to name William J. Burns, a career diplomat who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, to run the CIA. The choice marked Biden’s last major personnel announcement as he prepares to enter the White House on Jan. 20.

Here’s what to know:

• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed to push ahead with impeaching Trump if he is not removed from office first, adding a powerful voice to a debate that has begun to consume a Democratic Party both eager for impeachment and wary of it.
• Lawmakers who hunkered down together for safety while a pro-Trump mob attacked the Capitol on Wednesday may have been exposed to someone in the same room who was infected with the coronavirus, according to the Office of Attending Physician.
• The organizers of the PGA Championship canceled plans to hold the event at Trump’s Bedminster, N.J., golf club in 2022 in the wake of last week’s Trump-inspired riot at the Capitol.

gimmesometruth27

OnWis97 said:

Gern Blansten said:

I still can't figure out why Pence won't entertain the 25A angle.  I mean the fucker almost got him killed. 

Maybe he thinks the cult will kill him if he does.

but if he invokes 25th amendment and becomes president, he gets that secret service protection for the rest of his life. i do not believe former VPs get that. to me, that is enough incentive to do it.

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

Twitter is no different than this forum.  Obey the rules or you won't get to post here.

I agree.  Private company is a private company.  It's that simple to me.  The irony of this all is if Trump had his way and section 230 was actually repealed, the reality is that he would have been removed from social media much, much earlier.  Think about it, the families of the victims could sue Twitter for leaving his posts up without the protection of 230.  These are all just new boogeymen to the right wing, and as usual they never think strategically. 

gimmesometruth27

the best name i have seen for these folks if Incelwaffen. been laughing at that one for 2 days.

brianlux

Parksy said:

brianlux said:

There's been a lot of talk about "censorship" on Twitter, FaceBook, Simon and Schuster.  Blocking someone who incites rioting and invasion of the Capitol is not censorship.   A publishing company refusing to publish certain material is not censorship.  I wish these far right wingers would educate themselves instead of making their false claims. 

I've been seeing and hearing so much about censorship and freedom of speech with all of these 'cancels.' 

It's a large debate is good.. the thing I've often wondered about this scenario in particular with that maggot ass-hat Josh Crawley and his gripe about Simon and Schuster.  Why does he think Simon and Schuster do not also have a right to not do something?  The logic seems ass backwards.  Like "Hey! You have to publish my material because of Freedom of Speech."  It's an odd kind of irony.  

Yes, great point.  I guess they forgot that Simon and Schuster is a business and that gets to decide what they want to publish- the same way a grocery store gets to decide what brands of soap they want to carry.

Lerxst1992

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Twitter is no different than this forum.  Obey the rules or you won't get to post here.

I agree.  Private company is a private company.  It's that simple to me.  The irony of this all is if Trump had his way and section 230 was actually repealed, the reality is that he would have been removed from social media much, much earlier.  Think about it, the families of the victims could sue Twitter for leaving his posts up without the protection of 230.  These are all just new boogeymen to the right wing, and as usual they never think strategically. 

Sorry, but the 1st Amendment begs to differ,

” Privately controlled corporations shall take no action abridging the rights of murderers and insurrectionists to say whatever they want on its network of assets.”

mickeyrat

brianlux said:

Parksy said:

brianlux said:

There's been a lot of talk about "censorship" on Twitter, FaceBook, Simon and Schuster.  Blocking someone who incites rioting and invasion of the Capitol is not censorship.   A publishing company refusing to publish certain material is not censorship.  I wish these far right wingers would educate themselves instead of making their false claims. 

I've been seeing and hearing so much about censorship and freedom of speech with all of these 'cancels.' 

It's a large debate is good.. the thing I've often wondered about this scenario in particular with that maggot ass-hat Josh Crawley and his gripe about Simon and Schuster.  Why does he think Simon and Schuster do not also have a right to not do something?  The logic seems ass backwards.  Like "Hey! You have to publish my material because of Freedom of Speech."  It's an odd kind of irony.  

Yes, great point.  I guess they forgot that Simon and Schuster is a business and that gets to decide what they want to publish- the same way a grocery store gets to decide what brands of soap they want to carry.

Of course he knows that. Its the dumbfuck supporters who DONT know ,that he is appealing too.

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Twitter is no different than this forum.  Obey the rules or you won't get to post here.

I agree.  Private company is a private company.  It's that simple to me.  The irony of this all is if Trump had his way and section 230 was actually repealed, the reality is that he would have been removed from social media much, much earlier.  Think about it, the families of the victims could sue Twitter for leaving his posts up without the protection of 230.  These are all just new boogeymen to the right wing, and as usual they never think strategically. 

Sorry, but the 1st Amendment begs to differ,

” Privately controlled corporations shall take no action abridging the rights of murderers and insurrectionists to say whatever they want on its network of assets.”

Great point.  I hadn't thought to read a source document on the matter.  I stand corrected.  The Founding Fathers were prescient when they saw the rise of social media. 

Poncier

Gern Blansten said:

Twitter is no different than this forum.  Obey the rules or you won't get to post here.

Exactly.
These private platforms are allowed to regulate who is on their sites and what content they post, 1st amendment doesn't apply.
Trump (and everyone else) agreed to terms of service when signing up for Twitter and Facebook etc.

Kat

https://twitter.com/JoshMargolin/status/1348672731286532096

Gern Blansten

Kat said:

https://twitter.com/JoshMargolin/status/1348672731286532096

The Gravy Seals will be out in full force. 

HughFreakingDillon

Gravy Seals. LOL