This is Stupid

[Interceptor]

Keep you eye on the ball, not the crowd watching you.

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

Twitter and social media are evil and left wing biased. They will do whatever they can to try to discredit Trump especially and the right in general.

Trump may not always be eloquent, but he is expressing what a lot of conservatives feel.

So many people stay off social media because it's the same as the MSM. Biased.

Not an easy post to understand.

How can a platform be evil and left wing biased. The users themselves may express political views but the platform doesn't. Trump's favourite social media may just have torpedoed him.

Trump fires from the hip and has demonstrated appalling judgement with some of his tweets, now and for some time. If I post bollocks on social media it has little impact, if he does half the world is listening. It may be a source of entertainment to some but his silly posts have consequences. There are extreme right wing Americans looking for trigger comments from him to justify their actions - he should be far more considered in what he posts and think of the implications.

Don't forget Trump was an anti vax supporter a while ago - you really don't want that coming back to the surface now when it is completely proven that the anti vax movement is based on fresh air and fairy stories.

So in effect I am saying yes there do need to be some constraints on what is posted - or at least warnings to unsuspecting readers

 

[Caballus]

So in effect I am saying yes there do need to be some constraints on what is posted - or at least warnings to unsuspecting readers

I think the dilemma is agreeing on who should be empowered to execute those constraints and based on what criteria. Also, what should those constraints be? Obviously, fact checking is not the same as deleting or blocking; so there is a range of possible constraints.

 

[Gregs24]

I think the dilemma is agreeing on who should be empowered to execute those constraints and based on what criteria. Also, what should those constraints be? Obviously, fact checking is not the same as deleting or blocking; so there is a range of possible constraints.

It is indeed. Although in the case of Twitter you sign up to their platform terms and conditions, so you accept that Twitter will police their own platform. If people don't like what Twitter (or anything similar) does then the answer is simple - don't use it. The trouble for DT is that Twitter is his favourite method of communication and however much he squeaks he has to abide by their terms or go elsewhere. DT doesn't like it when he doesn't get his own way so fireworks are ahead.

 

[Caballus]

It is indeed. Although in the case of Twitter you sign up to their platform terms and conditions, so you accept that Twitter will police their own platform. If people don't like what Twitter (or anything similar) does then the answer is simple - don't use it. The trouble for DT is that Twitter is his favourite method of communication and however much he squeaks he has to abide by their terms or go elsewhere. DT doesn't like it when he doesn't get his own way so fireworks are ahead.

Good point regarding terms of reference; one of the major differences between news media and social media.

 

[Burkey]

Great example.. our president is making America the circus sideshow of the world.

Honestly, from the perspective of someone outside of the US, you guys hit that benchmark back when Trump started talking about Mexicans funding a wall...
Everything that’s happened since then has quite literally been like watching Tiger King. At the conclusion of each episode you’re left feeling “it can’t get any crazier than this”...and then you watch the next episode and find out how wrong you were.
On that front, it seems that even Twitter have finally hit their limit (although they’re still offering him a platform).

At a party on Friday night, the main topic of discussion was “what in the actual fuck is going on in the US right now”. That’s been pretty standard for quite some time now.
I really honestly wish it wasn’t like this.
The last time we had these types of discussions was back in the Bush Jnr era.

Sincere condolences from the rest of the free world.

 

[Hack]

Honestly, from the perspective of someone outside of the US, you guys hit that benchmark back when Trump started talking about Mexicans funding a wall...
Everything that’s happened since then has quite literally been like watching Tiger King. At the conclusion of each episode you’re left feeling “it can’t get any crazier than this”...and then you watch the next episode and find out how wrong you were.
On that front, it seems that even Twitter have finally hit their limit (although they’re still offering him a platform).

At a party on Friday night, the main topic of discussion was “what in the actual fuck is going on in the US right now”. That’s been pretty standard for quite some time now.
I really honestly wish it wasn’t like this.
The last time we had these types of discussions was back in the Bush Jnr era.

Sincere condolences from the rest of the free world.

It's interesting how skewed a view is presented by the huge corporate conglomerates trying to discredit any person that supports the little guy. And it's interesting how people buy into the fake news.

 

[Mikthehun1]

It's interesting how skewed a view is presented by the huge corporate conglomerates trying to discredit any person that supports the little guy. And it's interesting how people buy into the fake news.

Wait, in this scenario, is Trump the one "supporting the little guy"? Didn't he tell everyone that injecting bleach might be a good idea? I'm not sure he should be allowed to voice his opinions without being fact checked. Not just on Twitter either.

 

[Hack]

Wait, in this scenario, is Trump the one "supporting the little guy"? Didn't he tell everyone that injecting bleach might be a good idea? I'm not sure he should be allowed to voice his opinions without being fact checked. Not just on Twitter either.

Yes - smaller government and fewer regulations help normal people be able to start their own businesses and compete. Big companies typically donate large sums of money to politicians and then the politicians create regulations to help block small businesses. So many times the reduction of regulations helps the little guy. Not to mention business friendly environment in general supports higher employment, which helps more people get jobs.

I'm sure you have a long list of things that Trump said that the huge corporations are busy trying to discredit. They will stop at nothing to get "normal" politicians into office - people that will accept donations and then do whatever the big corporations want.

 

[Mikthehun1]

Yes - smaller government and fewer regulations help normal people be able to start their own businesses and compete. Big companies typically donate large sums of money to politicians and then the politicians create regulations to help block small businesses. So many times the reduction of regulations helps the little guy. Not to mention business friendly environment in general supports higher employment, which helps more people get jobs.

I'm sure you have a long list of things that Trump said that the huge corporations are busy trying to discredit. They will stop at nothing to get "normal" politicians into office - people that will accept donations and then do whatever the big corporations want.

Trump only has his best interest in mind, not the American people For the record, I feel the same way about Hillary.

Lobbying should be illegal for any group other than true non-profits (not funded by "interested" corporations). Corporate personhood should be outlawed. Every office should have fixed term limits. The electoral college only serves to disenfranchise voters. There, I fixed everything. Next!

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Trump only has his best interest in mind, not the American people For the record, I feel the same way about Hillary.

Lobbying should be illegal for any group other than true non-profits (not funded by "interested" corporations). Corporate personhood should be outlawed. Every office should have fixed term limits. The electoral college only serves to disenfranchise voters. There, I fixed everything. Next!

the only thing I disagree with you on is the electoral college. everything else sounds pretty decent.

 

[Silver Bullitt]

The electoral college only serves to disenfranchise voters.

I'd love to hear your explanation of this.

 

[Mikthehun1]

the only thing I disagree with you on is the electoral college. everything else sounds pretty decent.

I'd love to hear your explanation of this.

Look at the popular vote vs. the electoral vote. How is ok that someone can get more actual votes, but still lose? It was put in place in the 18th century because the rich landed elite were afraid they would lose power over the unwashed masses. What purpose does it serve now, except to allow for shady redistricting?

 

[watisthis]

Yes - smaller government and fewer regulations help normal people be able to start their own businesses and compete. Big companies typically donate large sums of money to politicians and then the politicians create regulations to help block small businesses. So many times the reduction of regulations helps the little guy. Not to mention business friendly environment in general supports higher employment, which helps more people get jobs.

Regulation isn't something you can just label as good or bad for business. Both regulation and business are too broad of concepts to talk about with simplistic terms like good and bad.

I'd love to hear your explanation of this.

The electoral college favors small population states thus giving them more of a voice. With the EC votes are not 1 to 1. Wyoming, for instance, has 3 time the influence in the EC than the average American which is not democracy.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Look at the popular vote vs. the electoral vote. How is ok that someone can get more actual votes, but still lose? It was put in place in the 18th century because the rich landed elite were afraid they would lose power over the unwashed masses. What purpose does it serve now, except to allow for shady redistricting?

um. no?

It was put in place because we are a union of states, and each state is equal, in that each state entity gets equal representation (2 out of 100 senate seats/votes). whereas the house is for the people, and every gets approximate equal representation on those remaining ~450 votes. the problem is that the house has not grown proportionally over the years as population grows. and people tend to forget that we are a union of states, but this is an issue with too much federal growth/power and centralization.

the fact that each state has given its two votes to its citizens popular vote is the reason it looks like this as well.

Sponsored