• Welcome to PASOTI (Sponsored by GA Solictors and Lang & Potter)
  • Hello guests - don't forget that by registering and signing up for Pasoti you'll see less adverts plus receive extras like free match tickets, taking part in polls, joining in the chat room and more. Come and join us!

Donald Trump

MickyD

Pasoti Donor
Dec 30, 2004
3,306
80
Brighton
Mike E":3v5jcq8r said:
A big decision this week on whether Facebook will lift Trumps ban. If they do then not only will he be able to resume spouting his devisive bile, but it will also enable him to resume milking his gullible following for funds.

A momentous decision in possible world stability.
Indeed it is. At least Twitter had the sense to ban him for life, but of course Mark "There's No Such Thing as Too Many Billions" Zuckerberg and chums kicked it down the road. Since The Big Lie - the very thing that brought about the Capitol insurrection - is now at the very core of Republican "policy," and Trump is still whining on about it at every opportunity (and 70% - seventy bloody per cent! - of Republican voters still believe it), the decision to keep him off the platform should be a no-brainer. Let's see if that turns out to be the case.
 

MickyD

Pasoti Donor
Dec 30, 2004
3,306
80
Brighton
Quinny":q96xcsof said:
MickyD":q96xcsof said:
It seems that with almost every day that passes we see more reasons why Trump and his goon squad were so desperate to stay in power - not just to turn the US into a fascist state, but to continue to hide their egregious criminality from public scrutiny.

It was already screamingly obvious at the time to all who weren't in Trump's thrall, but we now have confirmation that Bill Barr's whitewashing of the Mueller Report was a complete stitch-up, carefully planned in advance.

Secret William Barr memo saying not to charge Trump must be released, judge says

That was an interesting piece from CNN. I recall there being a disagreement between Mueller and Barr as to how to interpret the findings of Mueller's report, but that was a very clear and concise dissection from CNN.
I think that "disagreement" is far too polite a characterisation: as at least one commentator has said, the judge's description of Barr as disingenuous is polite legal speak for liar. Mueller, a highly honourable man often described as a boy scout during the investigation, was up against a flagrant liar and political hack in the form of Bill Barr, the Attorney General of the most corrupt and lawless regime in US history.

Mueller didn't stand a chance, especially once Barr had released his four-page "summary" outrageously quickly and before he'd even had a chance to do more than skim the report, as the judge herself put it. That was all Trump and conservative America needed to say that the whole thing was indeed a witch hunt and that he was fully exonerated, which he most cetainly was not - never mind all the redacted parts, which the world has yet to see. Credulous Trump fans still believe those lies to this day - because of course they do.
 
Apr 15, 2004
2,928
264
East Devon
MickyD":lvcvddoo said:
Mike E":lvcvddoo said:
A big decision this week on whether Facebook will lift Trumps ban. If they do then not only will he be able to resume spouting his devisive bile, but it will also enable him to resume milking his gullible following for funds.

A momentous decision in possible world stability.
Indeed it is. At least Twitter had the sense to ban him for life, but of course Mark "There's No Such Thing as Too Many Billions" Zuckerberg and chums kicked it down the road. Since The Big Lie - the very thing that brought about the Capitol insurrection - is now at the very core of Republican "policy," and Trump is still whining on about it at every opportunity (and 70% - seventy bloody per cent! - of Republican voters still believe it), the decision to keep him off the platform should be a no-brainer. Let's see if that turns out to be the case.
Maybe I’m playing devil’s advocate on this (almost literally) but I do wonder if it is right to ban Trump from Twitter & FB ?

Sure – nobody should be allowed to spread malicious and defamatory stuff online (or in the street) or incite violence. So I agree that means there can be no such thing as completely ‘free speech’ because of those important limits but unless it crosses those lines then he should be free to say anything he wants, however bat-sh1t stupid or crazy it is. Claiming the election was rigged is not in itself defamatory or inciting violence ….. not unless he points the finger at who he claims is responsible or tells people to do something illegal about it (like on Jan 6). But should he be stopped from just spouting off about how the ‘deep state’ stole the election any more than other crazies should be stopped going on about the moon landings being faked or 9-11 actually being the work of the CIA …… or the Russians being behind the Salisbury poisonings?(see what I did there?) . It starts to get quite dangerous once you start banning people from saying things simply because they are stupid and provocative but not actually defamatory or a direct incitement to violence.

His nonsense will get out one way or another so why not have it on a platform where he can be challenged, mocked and pulled apart? Blatant factual inaccuracies could be flagged - maybe even unsubstantiated claims flagged (although even that is getting into a grey area). But banning him just seems to play into his delusional ‘caped-crusader-for-truth-and-justice’ fantasies without actually showing it up for what it is – and sets a worrying precedent for when the nutters are in charge again.
 

MickyD

Pasoti Donor
Dec 30, 2004
3,306
80
Brighton
Well, as I understand it, since Facebook and the rest are not associated with the government (well, not officially), they can actually do what the hell they like when it comes to free speech or the lack thereof. The only reason they have to play the game, or their perverted version of it, is to maximise "engagement" for the sake of shareholders and the bottom line.

In other words - and I'm willing to stand corrected - I believe that they have no obligation at all to uphold the First Amendment and could ban anyone at any time if they so chose. They'd just garner vast amounts of negative publicity and see a huge drop in revenue if they did that.
 
Nov 15, 2011
2,221
418
Yes its up to Facebook et al who they allow on their platform and if they still feel Donny is a danger to inciting violence they have the freedom to choose not to let him do so.

FWIW I miss Donny on twitter, he's a funny guy, though not intentionally.
 
Jan 20, 2004
800
56
themightykeithfear":3rkpyqfy said:
Yes its up to Facebook et al who they allow on their platform and if they still feel Donny is a danger to inciting violence they have the freedom to choose not to let him do so.

FWIW I miss Donny on twitter, he's a funny guy, though not intentionally.

There lies the problem, as with Johnson, some people vote for them because they are more 'colourful and entertaining', rather than what they actually stand for.

They are more than just your average
boring sensible politician. They add a bit of spice to what is generally perceived to many as a dull arena.
 
Jul 15, 2006
3,955
83
Kenton, Devon
MickyD":2apd0msh said:
In other words - and I'm willing to stand corrected - I believe that they have no obligation at all to uphold the First Amendment and could ban anyone at any time if they so chose. They'd just garner vast amounts of negative publicity and see a huge drop in revenue if they did that.

This is correct. The First Amendment specifically covers the Government restricting free speech: it has nothing to do with private companies.
 

MickyD

Pasoti Donor
Dec 30, 2004
3,306
80
Brighton
Quinny":3fz0ks8a said:
MickyD":3fz0ks8a said:
In other words - and I'm willing to stand corrected - I believe that they have no obligation at all to uphold the First Amendment and could ban anyone at any time if they so chose. They'd just garner vast amounts of negative publicity and see a huge drop in revenue if they did that.

This is correct. The First Amendment specifically covers the Government restricting free speech: it has nothing to do with private companies.
Thanks, Quinny and tmkf. That's what I thought, and it's one of those things that makes the whole free speech/cancel culture "debate" so farcical.

Speaking of farcical, have you seen Trump's long-teased and loudly heralded brand spanking new "social media platform" which turns out to be nothing more than a blog page on his own website? "A place to speak freely and safely" - for him, and nobody else, because he's the only one who can contribute.

It even has Facebook and Twitter links! :facepalm: :lol:

iu
 

MickyD

Pasoti Donor
Dec 30, 2004
3,306
80
Brighton

MickyD

Pasoti Donor
Dec 30, 2004
3,306
80
Brighton
Seriously bad things are brewing in America thanks largely to the vile poison that the the former president has wantonly splattered throughout the land before, during and after his tenure; but, while we still can, let's just take a moment to enjoy the small pleasures.

Trump shuts down his blog after less than a month

The blog page that former President Donald Trump launched less than one month ago, after his team suggested he'd be launching a major new social platform, has been permanently shuttered.
 
May 11, 2017
200
18
Great Yarmouth
After 180 pages of Donald Trump I'm still at the same conclusion as I was at the beginning.

A self entitled, petulant little man who throws his toys out of the pram when something doesn't go his way. Then takes everyone else down with him including the United States of America as a whole after the fact.
 
Sep 25, 2010
2,834
218
He is now stating, that he will be re-instated to the White House by August, according to the Washington post.

He is destroying the GOP, and he doesn’t care.
 
Nov 15, 2011
2,221
418
Did anyone see the Trump video from yesterday? You know the guy who's had his freedom of speech taken away.

He had his trousers on back to front, (yes I know Biden is old and has a stutter), and talked about being back in the White House sooner than anyone thinks ! They're calling it Storming of The Capitol II - Return of Donny's Proud Boys. Yes it is a bit sinister, but priceless comedy value.
 

MickyD

Pasoti Donor
Dec 30, 2004
3,306
80
Brighton
themightykeithfear":2ynun891 said:
Did anyone see the Trump video from yesterday? You know the guy who's had his freedom of speech taken away.

He had his trousers on back to front, (yes I know Biden is old and has a stutter), and talked about being back in the White House sooner than anyone thinks ! They're calling it Storming of The Capitol II - Return of Donny's Proud Boys. Yes it is a bit sinister, but priceless comedy value.
I don't think anyone could manage to put on a pair of zip-up trousers back to front (or were they elasticated?!) but the hoo-ha has been worth it because Trump will be absolutely furious about all the richly deserved mockery. (I must say, though, that the images do look reeeeeeally weird. The phrase "Action Man genitals" came to mind.)

What's not so funny is all this "reinstated in August" stuff that I fear could be the next big flashpoint. When this magical reinstatement fails to materialise (although note that no specific date has been given) the MAGA crazies will crank the frothing, bug-eyed fury up to 11, especially with people like General Michael Flynn (that's Michael Flynn the criminal, pardoned by Trump) openly endorsing a "Myanmar-style" military coup - at a QAnon, rally, no less. (He quickly tried to deny that, but the lying, treasonous scumbag is on video.)

It's not a bit sinister, it's bloody terrifying.