Impeachment Round Two (1 Viewer)

[Yggdrasill]

I am in the camp that Trump must -not should- be impeached. If not this President, for this behavior, then what bar would have to be cleared to merit impeachment?

Impeachment not only sends a signal to the country and the world that fomenting a coup is unacceptable and will be punished, but it also removes much of the threat Trump could pose going forward as, I understand it, he would lose his pension, his access to daily security briefings, free medical care and other amenities and benefits afforded to former Presidents. If impeached, he would not meet the definition of a Former President under the Former Presidents Act. I don't think it is clear whether he would continue to receive Secret Service protection.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

And so precisely WHAT did Donato mean when he said "... ...I don’t think Trump has a chance next cycle. Without a voice from mainstream social media like Twitter, he’s not winning anything. .." ? It seems entirely clear to me that he is saying that Twitter is a key component of Trump's chance of winning the next presidential election. Ergot, twitter has a key role in deciding who can, and cannot, become president ?

Rudimentary enough ?

That's not what you said, though.

So Twitter (and its like) control who can - and cannot - become president ? Most interesting.

There's a huge difference in someone's social media presence playing a large part in getting out a message vs. the social media company having control over an election.

 

[Roofgardener]

That's not what you said, though.



There's a huge difference in someone's social media presence playing a large part in getting out a message vs. the social media company having control over an election.

If the person trying to get out the message is a presidential candidate, and the social media company is throttling the message, then there is a DIRECT correlation.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

If the person trying to get out the message is a presidential candidate, and the social media company is throttling the message, then there is a DIRECT correlation.

Again, the social media company is not controlling the election. There is a difference between someone's social media presence helping them win an election and the social media company itself playing a direct role in the outcome of elections.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

And so precisely WHAT did Donato mean when he said "... ...I don’t think Trump has a chance next cycle. Without a voice from mainstream social media like Twitter, he’s not winning anything. .." ? It seems entirely clear to me that he is saying that Twitter is a key component of Trump's chance of winning the next presidential election. Ergot, twitter has a key role in deciding who can, and cannot, become president ?

Rudimentary enough ?

Logically there’s no ‘ergot’ (sic) here
Donate was specifically talking about Trump
You are attempting to extrapolate that to a much larger context- there’s nothing ergo that shows that what happened to Trump is aimed at other candidates unless they lie and foment as well (the Twitter, social media ban is about lying AND fomenting)

And you are kinda demonstrating why the action is necessary

 

[Roofgardener]

Again, the social media company is not controlling the election. There is a difference between someone's social media presence helping them win an election and the social media company itself playing a direct role in the outcome of elections.

If the social media company has permanantly banned a candidate, then they are influencing the election.

 

[RobF]

If the social media company has permanantly banned a candidate, then they are influencing the election.

The candidate is affecting their own campaign by repeatedly breaching the platform's terms and conditions and being banned from that platform as a result.

What you're doing is the loose equivalent of arguing that, if a candidate is caught DUI going over 100mph and is jailed as a result, that the justice system is influencing the election. The justice system is being impartial; the candidate is being affected as a result of their own actions.

 

[brandon]

If the social media company has permanantly banned a candidate, then they are influencing the election.

It’s a nice thought experiment, but the reality is that the user broke the platform’s terms of service. He was given more leash than anyone else because he was the president and continued to break the TOS repeatedly and blatantly, which eventually directly resulted in violence.

If this prevents his ability to be elected, it’s his own fault.

Edit: beaten by like 2 seconds by @RobF

 

[Roofgardener]

The candidate is affecting their own campaign by repeatedly breaching the platform's terms and conditions and being banned from that platform as a result.

What you're doing is the loose equivalent of arguing that, if a candidate is caught DUI going over 100mph and is jailed as a result, that the justice system is influencing the election. The justice system is being impartial; the candidate is being affected as a result of their own actions.

NOT if they have been permanantly banned, RobF. Their (hypothetical) new posts cannot be measured for 'terms and conditions' in that situation.

 

[brandon]

NOT if they have been permanantly banned, RobF. Their (hypothetical) new posts cannot be measured for 'terms and conditions' in that situation.

That’s not how terms and conditions work. Continuing @RobF ’s analogy, if the candidate murdered someone and was given a life sentence, he is permanently banned from campaign rallies by association...because he’s in jail, not because his sentence specifically said he wasn’t allowed to hold campaign rallies.

 

[Taurus]

Guys, this whole page is nothing but a troll buffet. Y'all know that, right?

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Guys, this whole page is nothing but a troll buffet. Y'all know that, right?

If you want to go recruit some content conservatives, we’ll be happy to discuss
Until then we’ll play the hand we’re dealt

(That’s not a shot at you)

 

[wardorican]

If the social media company has permanantly banned a candidate, then they are influencing the election.

Twitter has a strong reach for reporters and younger to middle aged folks, but most older folks don't even bother. My parents don't use or probably even know what Twitter is, outside of Trump being criticized for his use of it, and maybe now that he's not allowed on.

And I do think a strong online presence is very useful and cost effective.

However, TV, News, free air time talking about controversy are still the biggest benefits Trump has and will continue to have, if he wants it.

Twitter, and other social media has really only been a part of 2-3 presidential elections. This isn't a ban from TV news or a ban from print Media.

I think the power of Twitter is being over stated.

 

[SFIDC3]

Guys, this whole page is nothing but a troll buffet. Y'all know that, right?

I hear you, been saying that for days now...slightly better packaging but trolling nonetheless....

 

[Yggdrasill]

If the social media company has permanantly banned a candidate, then they are influencing the election.

Sure, just as a newspaper or TV station or other media outlet influences public opinion in its coverage and editorializing. So what? Are you saying that someone has a "right" to be heard via a particular medium? That private companies have an obligation to give voice to everyone who wants a voice via their platform? And moreover, that said private company is obligated to ignore persistent violations of their terms of service and allow an individual to mount a massive disinformation campaign? Doing so also influences an election. So how is one "worse" or even different from, the other?

 

[CoolBrees]

it may come as a surprise to someone who may not know this, a foreigner perhaps, but Twitter, etc. are corporations. Corporations are legally within their rights to promote one candidate and completely shut out another - bad mouth even. They typically don’t because it isn’t good business to alienate a large portion of your client base. Corporations exist to profit. Nothing more. Twitter saw the litigation coming after the crazies stormed the Capitol and cut bait. Business decision.

is that a problem? Take it up with the capitalists.

 

[Taurus]

If you want to go recruit some content conservatives, we’ll be happy to discuss
Until then we’ll play the hand we’re dealt

(That’s not a shot at you)

Principled conservatives, (as opposed to QAnon, Trumpist, Republican) crazies aren't going to have much to debate on this subject. Dude's guilty as sin. Trump conducted a long-term self-coup that only failed because he relied on dipshirts to carry out the last phase.
A few well-trained Blackwater mercs would've changed the whole complexion of the day and we'd be conducting a whole slew of special elections to replace murdered representatives.
Philosophical Conservatism abhors and rejects Trump just as harshly as Progressivism does.

 

[DaveXA]

Principled conservatives, (as opposed to QAnon, Trumpist, Republican) crazies aren't going to have much to debate on this subject. Dude's guilty as sin. Trump conducted a long-term self-coup that only failed because he relied on dipshirts to carry out the last phase.
A few well-trained Blackwater mercs would've changed the whole complexion of the day and we'd be conducting a whole slew of special elections to replace murdered representatives.
Philosophical Conservatism abhors and rejects Trump just as harshly as Progressivism does.

Thank you, well said!

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I think the power of Twitter is being over stated.

I don't think it's being exaggerated specifically for Trump. The scope and depth of his lies and false narratives dwarf anything we have ever seen from a major political figure. Because of that even his favored mouthpiece, Fox, often has to back away or downplay his statements. Twitter allows him to get his message out his way. There's no other mainstream place for him to do that because nobody with even the tiniest bit of standards or reputation to uphold will.

So for Trump, Twitter is absolutely essential. That doesn't mean he has the right to consistently and unabashedly break the Terms of Service he agreed to when he joined.