Is Trump Mad?

[kwackers]

there is a lot of leaders out there far worse than trump who still have the freedom of free speech through twitter. Banning trump seems very political to me.

Did he really incite violence, he called on people to march on parliament and be strong. Being able to march on parliament is the norm in all free countries and hopefully it always will be. Don't see where he told anyone to break the doors down and and bring along home made napalm!

I don't think trump has the media at all, most of the media seems to have been on his back from day one, often exaggerating and even making stuff up about him.

it suits me Trump has gone, I've loathed the bloke since he trashed a SSSI in Aberdenshire to build a golf course
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48789620
But i have found it disturbing how one sided the media can be (even our own BBC). Are we all just being brainwashed ?

Until very recently the BBC have been very restrained in their accounts of Trump's crazy behaviour. He has made himself look a fool and any neutral media will reflect that, because it is just reality. It is impossible to not be critical with that sort of nonsense going on, day after day, week after week.

Trump was very aware of the type of people he was calling on.
Not only that but the fact there was going to be trouble was fairly widely known from reading the various threads on Parler.
As president of the USA a country that has vast amounts of tech surveillance I find it completely implausible he wouldn't have been aware of this.

OTOH I'm sorry Parler has gone, if you want to stare up the anus of humanity it was a good place to sit.

[PDQ Mobile]

there is a lot of leaders out there far worse than trump who still have the freedom of free speech through twitter. Banning trump seems very political to me.

Did he really incite violence, he called on people to march on parliament and be strong. Being able to march on parliament is the norm in all free countries and hopefully it always will be. Don't see where he told anyone to break the doors down and and bring along home made napalm!

I don't think trump has the media at all, most of the media seems to have been on his back from day one, often exaggerating and even making stuff up about him.

it suits me Trump has gone, I've loathed the bloke since he trashed a SSSI in Aberdenshire to build a golf course
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48789620
But i have found it disturbing how one sided the media can be (even our own BBC). Are we all just being brainwashed ?

Until very recently the BBC have been very restrained in their accounts of Trump's crazy behaviour. He has made himself look a fool and any neutral media will reflect that, because it is just reality. It is impossible to not be critical with that sort of nonsense going on, day after day, week after week.

Which is sort of "pebbles" point?
If one stops for a moment to consider it.

The real hard criticism of Trump came mostly after it was clear he would or had lost the election.

Had he managed to hold onto the Presidency things might (would?) have been otherwise.

It was notable that Fox News's (and other very right of centre press) support for Trump faded at the same time.
Cause and effect?

As for Twitter etc, it's WWW.
WWW was given to everybody at the time of it's inception to use for free and without outside influence.
How things have changed!

It is hard to foresee what WWW will look like in another decade, I think.

[reohn2]

Trump was very aware of the type of people he was calling on.
Not only that but the fact there was going to be trouble was fairly widely known ......

Quite!
And the fact that he was afforded an outlet for stirring up that trouble and many other troubles,is directly traceable to the likes of Murdoch,Zuckerberg,etc who'll escape scott free of any responsibility for Trump and his henchmen's excesses.

[francovendee]

Rats and a sinking ship. There a number of organisations who are trying to put clear water between themselves and Trump.
Very different if he'd won. It's all about money.

[kwackers]

As for Twitter etc, it's WWW.
WWW was given to everybody at the time of it's inception to use for free and without outside influence.
How things have changed!

It is hard to foresee what WWW will look like in another decade, I think.

You can set up your own server, stick it on the WWW no problem.
In that respect nothing has really changed merely there are a large number of "private" companies offering platforms.

Twitter is a private company, they can do what they like.

Remember the baker in the U.S that refused to bake a cake (I think it was for a 'gay' couple), he was taken to court and the court awarded in his favour on the basis that as a private company he could refuse to bake a cake for whoever he chose.
At the time the far right in the U.S was celebrating the decision as a "win for common sense" and now when private companies are choosing to use this freedom suddenly it's wrong?

That's always been my fundamental problem particularly with the far right, they want to restrict others freedoms but not their own.

[simonineaston]

OTOH I'm sorry Parler has gone, if you want to stare up the anus of humanity it was a good place to sit.

Yuk - but I know what you mean! But don't let's worry - they'll be plenty of other toilets out there - dark web still exists, for example... a lot of the more obvious social software is likely to be for the sort of numb-nuts who can't figure out how to work the really secret stuff!!
And as for Trump being 'mad'?? see here

[Psamathe]

...
Twitter is a private company, they can do what they like.

Remember the baker in the U.S that refused to bake a cake (I think it was for a 'gay' couple), he was taken to court and the court awarded in his favour on the basis that as a private company he could refuse to bake a cake for whoever he chose.
At the time the far right in the U.S was celebrating the decision as a "win for common sense" and now when private companies are choosing to use this freedom suddenly it's wrong?.....

Twitter (et al) can chose who they want to provide services to but does it get a bit more complex when they are provided legal immunity from what is published on their platform (under US law). If they now chose to act in editorial capacity then can they claim the exemptions from being publishers?

i can see they can ban people who break the law but when it comes to breaking their T&Cs and at the same time claiming protections under section 230. I do feel they are justified in banning Trump but I'm uncertain about their abdicating responsibility for so many others provided a platform (something they can only do because of Section 230).

Ian

[Vorpal]

IMO, there will likely be further trouble.

I hope that being better prepared for it will prevent escalation of violence.

Historically, attempted coups are often followed by successful ones. I guess we will see if Trump was testing the waters, or he is just playing games.

Either could be true.

[francovendee]

IMO, there will likely be further trouble.

I hope that being better prepared for it will prevent escalation of violence.

Historically, attempted coups are often followed by successful ones. I guess we will see if Trump was testing the waters, or he is just playing games.

Either could be true.

That thought really does send shivers down my spine. I'm sure Trump has enough well armed supporters to attempt it.

[kylecycler]

IMO, there will likely be further trouble.

I hope that being better prepared for it will prevent escalation of violence.

Historically, attempted coups are often followed by successful ones. I guess we will see if Trump was testing the waters, or he is just playing games.

Either could be true.

That thought really does send shivers down my spine. I'm sure Trump has enough well armed supporters to attempt it.

The problem might be how many of the forces of law and order - police, National Guard, even the military - oppose Trump or side with him.

Sorry, that's even scarier.

Van Jones, who some might recognise from his contributions on CNN, did a TED talk in October, just before the election, which ended with this:

"The best way to stop a coup is to update and strengthen our democratic system as soon as this election is over. Maybe we need to rethink, reimagine or just get rid of this whole electoral college, extra inning thing in the first place. I know for sure we've got to do a better job of protecting voter rights, of prosecuting voter intimidation and also making sure we've got the technology that nobody needs to be afraid of voter fraud. These are the steps that we're going to have to take to make sure that we have a democracy and the democracy endures. Because never forget this: in the long sweep of human history, a democratic republic is the rarest form of government on earth. Democracies are fragile. Democracies can fail. And what citizens do or fail to do in a moment of crisis can determine the final fate of government of, by and for the people."

https://www.ted.com/talks/van_jones_wha ... transcript

[reohn2]

Rats and a sinking ship. There a number of organisations who are trying to put clear water between themselves and Trump.
Very different if he'd won. It's all about money.

Of course,it's the sickness that's propagated with and by neolibralism.
The UK is no different one only need look at(forgive me) the Brexit debacle,big money from rightwing and social media owned by the likes of Murdoch and Zuckerberg.
Democracy is being bought and sold by such people.

Take a look at the likes of Kelly Loeffler,Republican candidate who ran against Raphael Warnock and lost,thankfully :- https://youtu.be/GhVHuxzbk2k

EDITED for typos

[Ben@Forest]

...
Remember the baker in the U.S that refused to bake a cake (I think it was for a 'gay' couple), he was taken to court and the court awarded in his favour on the basis that as a private company he could refuse to bake a cake for whoever he chose.
At the time the far right in the U.S was celebrating the decision as a "win for common sense" and now when private companies are choosing to use this freedom suddenly it's wrong?.....

That was here in Northern Ireland (though of course a similar case may have happened in the US) and it wasn't that he refused to bake a cake for a gay client. He refused to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage message on it, so sexual orientation was not the issue.

The baker won but it was going to the ECHR, however I don't know whether that's pertinent now? It's worth noting that Peter Tatchell, the pro-gay rights campaigner supported the baker because it was about freedom of expression - not gay rights.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 07792.html

[kwackers]

...
Remember the baker in the U.S that refused to bake a cake (I think it was for a 'gay' couple), he was taken to court and the court awarded in his favour on the basis that as a private company he could refuse to bake a cake for whoever he chose.
At the time the far right in the U.S was celebrating the decision as a "win for common sense" and now when private companies are choosing to use this freedom suddenly it's wrong?.....

That was here in Northern Ireland (though of course a similar case may have happened in the US) and it wasn't that he refused to bake a cake for a gay client. He refused to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage message on it, so sexual orientation was not the issue.

The baker won but it was going to the ECHR, however I don't know whether that's pertinent now? It's worth noting that Peter Tatchell, the pro-gay rights campaigner supported the baker because it was about freedom of expression - not gay rights.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 07792.html

I was under the impression something similar happened in the U.S.

But it is completely pertinent because it's exactly what Twitter et al have done.
Those that lauded that result are now up in arms that companies are doing exactly the same and choosing who their customers should be.

[[XAP]Bob]

I find it astonishing that people are still talking about the twitter ban in terms of free speech.

There are two major points at play here:

- The protection of free speech does not include the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
And much of what the orange one had been saying is similarly "non protected" speech.

- Free speech isn't the right to have a specific publisher (or anyone) publish your speech.
He is still free to say anything, in fact he has rather more platforms than most to ensure that his verbal diarrhoea reaches a wide audience.
Noone can claim that their free speech is being attacked because the BBC won't put them on the main news.

An attack on free speech is people being arrested for what they say, and more than that, the things they are saying must not be any of the variety of banned items (which are generally to do with endangering others, hence the "fire in a theatre" comparison).

[Vorpal]

...
Remember the baker in the U.S that refused to bake a cake (I think it was for a 'gay' couple), he was taken to court and the court awarded in his favour on the basis that as a private company he could refuse to bake a cake for whoever he chose.
At the time the far right in the U.S was celebrating the decision as a "win for common sense" and now when private companies are choosing to use this freedom suddenly it's wrong?.....

That was here in Northern Ireland (though of course a similar case may have happened in the US) and it wasn't that he refused to bake a cake for a gay client. He refused to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage message on it, so sexual orientation was not the issue.

The baker won but it was going to the ECHR, however I don't know whether that's pertinent now? It's worth noting that Peter Tatchell, the pro-gay rights campaigner supported the baker because it was about freedom of expression - not gay rights.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 07792.html

I was under the impression something similar happened in the U.S.

But it is completely pertinent because it's exactly what Twitter et al have done.
Those that lauded that result are now up in arms that companies are doing exactly the same and choosing who their customers should be.

Something similar did happen in the US. Colorado courts found that a baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple had discriminated against them. The US Supreme court found that the religious belief of the bakery owner was not adequately considered in the decision and reversed it (note that they did not comment on whether the gay couple had been discriminated against).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpie ... Commission