Preventing our president from speaking to his people

It shows how far standards have dropped if a 140 character misspelt all caps diatribe at 3am - possibly while sitting on a porcelain throne in the bathroom at the Whitehouse - is classed as 'speaking to the people'

Twitters playground, Twitters rules. 'nuff said

a reply to: Littlebatman

Gawd! I've heard so many Trump haters use that tired old "sitting-on-the-potty" insult. It's old. It's stupid.

originally posted by: HODOSKE
Is any one else as disturbed as me by this? Not a big fan of President Trump, but preventing him from speaking to his people by social media is very disturbing. People that own social media are deciding what is true or false. So may people are having there accounts removed or banned from social media. All because they have a different point of view. Very scary

Yes I am quite disturbed by it. They may not like Trump the person, but everything they have done for four years to de-legitimize him has shown that they have no respect for the Office of President of the US. Beginning with the #not.my.president thing that trended all over twitter on day one.

They have been petty, childish and completely un-American the way they show blatant, overt disrespect for the sitting President. This includes MSM, other-party politicians, celebrities and general public. Of course big tech feels empowered to shut him down. There has been no voice in the opposing party that has called for any form of decorum towards the President. Quite the opposite. Those who attack him are rewarded with "social cred." I am ashamed of their behavior. To the rest of the world I say: this is unprecedented, and this is not how it is supposed to be. I hope you know that. In this country, such utter disrespect for the Office of President is reprehensible.

a reply to: queenofswords

Maybe, but couldn't the same be said of the hypocrisy of complaining about the same old lines being trotted out by a Trump supporter?

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: oloufo

the riots, the looting, the violence show that something is wrong in american society. but you also have to separate. blm, metoo etc... are peaceful movements that sometimes represent radical ideas. these are about primal human concerns. against racism, for equality, for environmental protection.

the attack on the capitol was an attack on the foundation of the state. and against all those who respect this institution and thus also respect the rules and laws that prevail in the usa. that was a call for anarchy.

So, attacking local communities, taking over autonomous zones, destroying businesses, destroying government buildings and private property is fighting concerns against racism and the environment. Attacking people and things who have nothing to do with those problems is good.

Protesting a government you have a problem with by converging on the government buildings, breaking in and milling around for a bit, taking some selfies acting like clowns is an attack on the entirety of the USA...

The level of doublethink going on here with all this astounds me.

it's about the intention, the reason why. what was the intention/motivation of the idiot who set fire to a barber shop? and what was the motivation of the people who stormed the capitol?

a reply to: new_here

They have been petty, childish and completely un-American the way they show blatant, overt disrespect for the sitting President.

True. But, they are honored by telling them they are un-American. That's the thing we need to finally understand and accept. They don't care about America. They may have citizenship, but they hate their own country and want to fundamentally transform it, tear up our Constitution like Nancy did our President's State of the Union speech last year.

When we finally realize that telling them their actions are unconstitutional and un-American means nothing to them, then we can start approaching their efforts to bring the US down in a different manner.

i agree with you. i was always taught to respect the president and the office no matter who was in. the people voted him in so we should respect that. a reply to: new_here

originally posted by: Nivhk
a reply to: IAMTAT
Wouldn't that be...

*gasp* the new buzz word, coup?

Reasonable conclusion.
What else would you call it, when you consciously act to cut communication between a President and his nation?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Nivhk
a reply to: IAMTAT
Wouldn't that be...

*gasp* the new buzz word, coup?

Reasonable conclusion.
What else would you call it, when you consciously act to cut communication between a President and his nation?

Really? I was under the impression he could still meet with reporters or chat to his public on the street or livestream on FB or talk on the phone with whoever has the number to call? Literally just walk outside his office and have coffee with the first person he meets who isn't an employee. That's not exactly what you call embargo.

a reply to: IAMTAT
I dunno, "their business, their rules"? That seems to be common, even with evidence those businesses are breaking their own T&C.

I'm just an addled man with aspergers trying to cope with socializing disabilities.

What do I know?

a reply to: TzarChasm
Well, how do I get to see that?

Is being a citizen not good enough?

Where do I join this club if the reporter he talked to decides to not air it unedited?

originally posted by: Nivhk
a reply to: TzarChasm
Well, how do I get to see that?

Is being a citizen not good enough?

Where do I join this club if the reporter he talked to decides to not air it unedited?

You turn on the TV and tune it to the appropriate channel.

a reply to: TzarChasm
I guess I could drop everything, travel half way across the country and try to talk to him personally.

But then again, I might be shot through the door before getting inside.

a reply to: TzarChasm
And what is the appropriate channel?

CNN? Fox?

You guys keep giving me mixed signals on what you trust.

Edit: Even I missed it, but what happens if the reporter doesn't air it unedited? Is there a channel for that?

originally posted by: Nivhk
a reply to: TzarChasm
And what is the appropriate channel?

CNN? Fox?

You guys keep giving me mixed signals on what you trust.

I expect they would all broadcast the same footage of whatever he's doing or saying when he decides to address the public. Who is "you guys"?

a reply to: HODOSKE

Yes. He is...extremely scary. Aren't you scared?

a reply to: TzarChasm

No. He effed that up by called all media "FAKE". He gets nothing. He told us it be fake.. even things he says!
Now he needs them? C'mon...

a reply to: HalWesten

It does when the rest of the country uses the internet to communicate. When sweet FA all people listen to the radio and many only use streaming services rather than TV

If ALL politicians AND political posts were banned from social platforms and had to use their own official websites and "old skool" versions of communication I'd agree wholeheartedly.

originally posted by: HODOSKE
Is any one else as disturbed as me by this? Not a big fan of President Trump, but preventing him from speaking to his people by social media is very disturbing. People that own social media are deciding what is true or false. So may people are having there accounts removed or banned from social media. All because they have a different point of view. Very scary

Because he can't have a press conference in the White House like every other president?

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: HODOSKE

there are rules. if you don't follow the rules, you have to live with the consequences. he could give a live speech. he can talk on the radio. he can stand in the street and spread his stories with a megaphone. people have been banned before trump, that's nothing new. if you don't follow the terms, your account will be deactivated. only if you are on a site for radicals where it's about promoting lies, hate and violence (also terrorism) you can write what you want (ideologically).

So. When you a radical for the Left, you’re still good to post to Twitter though...

Right?