Mr Trump - All discussion here

[L00b 441]

2 hours ago, Jim117 said:

Wonder what’ll happen to his stupid wall. Read in a couple of places that he’s been siphoning off money earmarked for the navy to fund his folly. This at a time when China is hugely expanding its fleet.

Mexicans rang in at the weekend, saying they'll pay for it now.

 

Oh and the Canadians want one too.

 

 

[Delbow 693]

22 minutes ago, frigate said:

Why wasn’t this instigated when BLM movement were burning and trashing half of America down in 140 cities! There were 30 people killed with billions in damages at these events, and big tech did nothing then! It is so clear what the agenda is here. If your on our side its ok, if your on the other side we will silence your movement.

and not only that, but the political left supported the riots, they trashed businesses, the federal courthouses held siege, the CHAZ zone where 2 people were killed, and Kamala Harris said this must continue. So why aren’t her social media accounts suspended? 

I'll be impressed if you can find evidence of Kamala Harris inciting riots on social media (you can't). Also, it's convenient for people on the right to talk about BLM or Antifa as if they are homogenous, hegemonic organisations of which everyone who attends a protest is a member and all of them think exactly the same. They're not. Quite aside from the question of whether we have the right to dictate to people how they should respond to decades of armed, racist oppression, the more obvious point is that if some people set a building on fire that doesn't deprive others of their right to protest or their first amendment rights.

[Magilla 510]

48 minutes ago, frigate said:

Why wasn’t this instigated when BLM movement were burning and trashing half of America down in 140 cities! There were 30 people killed with billions in damages at these events, and big tech did nothing then!

Which political leader during the BLM protests expressly urged people to go out and commit criminality?

 

48 minutes ago, frigate said:

It is so clear what the agenda is here. If your on our side its ok, if your on the other side we will silence your movement.

Which 'side' is that?

 

48 minutes ago, frigate said:

and not only that, but the political left supported the riots, they trashed businesses, the federal courthouses held siege, the CHAZ zone where 2 people were killed, and Kamala Harris said this must continue. So why aren’t her social media accounts suspended? 

The "political left" supported the movement, not the riots.

 

Your false equivalency doesn't hold water, there is none.

 

[Delbow 693]

5 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Twitter initially  suspended Donald Trump for 12 hours.  After the suspension ended Donald Trump  tweeted he was not attending the inauguration and made references  to the election result which he disputes. I don't believe not respecting the Presidential Election result or attending the inauguration as inciting  his supporters to go rioting or doing other lawless behaviour.  I don't support how Donald Trump has behaved but I agree with him that Twitter are preventing free speech by banning him.

 

The truth is Donald Trump has got his fingers burnt because of his lack of respect for democracy.  Donald Trump never told anyone to invade the Capitol Building and to engage in acts of vandalism.  

He didn't directly incite violence, but whether he is guilty of the criminal offence of incitement remains to be seen. It is valid to note the timing of his social media bans, essentially they've banned him now because  he can't take revenge on them, they let him lie and spread his support for white supremacists while he was in a position to limit their profits. There is no great moral decision here, it's just convenience. They want to be seen to be on the right side but it's fake.

[Delbow 693]

It's the same thinking that's behind people like Nike putting Colin Kaepernick in an ad - you had all these racists saying they were going to boycott Nike, but Nike had already worked out there was more money to be made from people sympathetic to Kaepernick than there was from racists. It wasn't that they actually cared.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

You make some valid points.

 

The truth is Twitter wouldn't have banned Donald Trump if he had won the election.  

They wouldn't have banned him if he hadn't mobilised and encouraged at riot inside the capitol building.

[Box11 28]

1 hour ago, Delbow said:

He didn't directly incite violence, but whether he is guilty of the criminal offence of incitement remains to be seen. It is valid to note the timing of his social media bans, essentially they've banned him now because  he can't take revenge on them, they let him lie and spread his support for white supremacists while he was in a position to limit their profits. There is no great moral decision here, it's just convenience. They want to be seen to be on the right side but it's fake.

"Correct"

1 hour ago, Delbow said:

It's the same thinking that's behind people like Nike putting Colin Kaepernick in an ad - you had all these racists saying they were going to boycott Nike, but Nike had already worked out there was more money to be made from people sympathetic to Kaepernick than there was from racists. It wasn't that they actually cared.

"Also correct"

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, Delbow said:

He didn't directly incite violence, but whether he is guilty of the criminal offence of incitement remains to be seen. It is valid to note the timing of his social media bans, essentially they've banned him now because  he can't take revenge on them, they let him lie and spread his support for white supremacists while he was in a position to limit their profits. There is no great moral decision here, it's just convenience. They want to be seen to be on the right side but it's fake.

Which is a sad state of affairs in itself. I'd be surprised if Nike didn't give fox news a chunk of advertising money every year which should be incompatible with both parties PR.

[whiteowl 54]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

Twitter initially  suspended Donald Trump for 12 hours.  After the suspension ended Donald Trump  tweeted he was not attending the inauguration and made references  to the election result which he disputes. I don't believe not respecting the Presidential Election result or attending the inauguration as inciting  his supporters to go rioting or doing other lawless behaviour.  I don't support how Donald Trump has behaved but I agree with him that Twitter are preventing free speech by banning him.

 

The truth is Donald Trump has got his fingers burnt because of his lack of respect for democracy.  Donald Trump never told anyone to invade the Capitol Building and to engage in acts of vandalism.  

Quite a few people have been muttering about free speech. I don't really see how getting banned from Twitter has anything to do with free speech - I thought this cartoon summed it up nicely :

 

 

Also - I'm fairly sure he has a fully staffed press-room just down the corridor from his living room if he needs to say anything publicly?

[tinfoilhat 11]

5 minutes ago, West 77 said:

He didn't tell anyone to riot either inside or outside the Capitol Building.  As I stated earlier Donald Trump got his fingers burnt because of his disrespect for democracy.  Any World leader of a democratic country is playing with fire if they don't respect an election result.

Trumps actions go a bit beyond disrespecting an election result.

[altus 538]

12 minutes ago, whiteowl said:

Quite a few people have been muttering about free speech. I don't really see how getting banned from Twitter has anything to do with free speech - I thought this cartoon summed it up nicely :

 

Also - I'm fairly sure he has a fully staffed press-room just down the corridor from his living room if he needs to say anything publicly?

It's ironic that the Republicans made a big thing about ensuring companies could refuse to provide a service to anyone for any reason. Of course they were supporting people not wanting to make cakes for gay people but the exact same laws they enacted to enable that means there's no defence against Twitter, et. al, from banning Trump and his acolytes.

[Delbow 693]

4 minutes ago, altus said:

It's ironic that the Republicans made a big thing about ensuring companies could refuse to provide a service to anyone for any reason. Of course they were supporting people not wanting to make cakes for gay people but the exact same laws they enacted to enable that means there's no defence against Twitter, et. al, from banning Trump and his acolytes.

Clearly they need this spelling out, in icing, on a big gay cake