What do you think of Twitter’s decision to censor Trump’s lying tweets?

Does the tweet have a footnote that says “LIAR LIAR pants on fire” ?

Asking for a friend with a college degree and advance degree too.

But it puts the truth in front of his blind followers, not just a censor. It is going to embarrass him for for all his serial lies.

Do you think he saw it coming?

Could it have something to do with The Washington Post’s upcoming book?

About The Book

In perilous times, facts, expertise, and truth are indispensable. President Trump’s flagrant disregard for the truth and his self-aggrandizing exaggerations, specious misstatements, and bald-faced lies have been rigorously documented and debunked since the first day of his presidency by The Washington Post’s Fact Checker staff.

Donald Trump and His Assault on Truth is based on the only comprehensive compilation and analysis of the more than 16,000 fallacious statements that Trump has uttered since the day of his inauguration. He has repeated many of his most outrageous claims dozens or even hundreds of times as he has sought to bend reality to his political fantasy and personal whim.

Drawing on Trump’s tweets, press conferences, political rallies, and TV appearances, The Washington Post identifies his most frequently used misstatements, biggest whoppers, and most dangerous deceptions. This book unpacks his errant statements about the economy, immigration, the impeachment hearings, foreign policy, and, of critical concern now, the coronavirus crisis as it unfolded. ( Simon and Schuster )

Its interesting that censoring Trump erodes YOUR freedom of speech and many short-sighted people applaud it. Just realize this opens the door.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/28/new_twitter_censorship_rules_raise_transparency_questions_143049.html

Fact checking is not censoring.

They weren’t censored. They were labelled as possibly inaccurate. Big difference,

True

Not that Trumplethinskin understands the difference…

@Darth_Algar he doesn’t, but I think that is’s important for people not to get sucked into his lies.

@Darth_Algar Ten more GA’s The truth is not censoring !!

Bozo is a pathological liar !!

@elbanditoroso

Indeed. Unfortunately, however, his worshipers will just dismiss fact checking as “liberal bias”, “fake news”, “Democratic rigging”, etc.

Facebook does something similar now, adding on a link to inaccurate link posts, so you can see the truth.

Four years too late.

100K dead, 40Mil on unemployment.

Let’s talk about some blue links on Twitter. Perfect.

I posted about it in Facebook and my Trump friends basically said “who’s truth?” They also said Twitter is known to be bias. It doesn’t do anything in terms of the Trumpers. Probably, it would be better if people like me didn’t do a status about it, and just hope the crazy tweet goes unnoticed.

I would like to see instantaneous fact checking during political debates. One person could claim to have said something and an opposing candidate could show a video of the candidate saying the opposite. There could be fact checking for supposed statistics. Under these ;circumstances, practically everything Trump says would be flagged.

Putting a fact-check link under a serial-liar’s post is not censorship.

As opposed to drumpf threatening to ‘regulate, or close them down’

They can set any standards they want to. Just like Fluther does.
It isn’t censorship unless the government does it.

There are right-leaning sites like Breitbart that are not reliable, and left-leaning sites that are not reliable, but it used to be that there were some sites and sources that were seen by everyone as being truthful and reliable, such as the NY Times, NBC news, etc. Now there are people who will say those sites are full of lies too. Even Snopes, which I used to use to fact check, people will say it’s leftist and full of lies.

Statistics can be manipulated to tell a story in either direction.

No matter what sites are used to say Trump’s tweets are lies, there are those who will say they’re lies.

@josie I would add that Twitter is under no obligation to let anyone write anything. They are a prviate company

And once again the fool just digs himself into a deeper hole. I woke up to the news this morning of him raving about the social media and silicon valley in particular viciously stomping on conservatives, and how HE is going to shut them down.

@KNOWITALL That’s an interesting take, that twitter is driving a nail into the coffin of freedom of speech. But didn’t Trump in effect force their hand? While it certainly can be argued that the move was unnecessary, since by now no one believes what the fool has to say anyway, the truth is that a sizable number of people as warped as himself actually look to the twisted idiot for leadership.

@stanleybmanly As long as you understand it’s about blocking the anti-lockdown protesters, not Trump. They are only using Trump as an example to get the American public’s approval of their sweeping explansion of censorship rules.

After years of being on the defensive over data breaches, privacy invasion, censorship and monopoly concerns, social media platforms are leveraging the current public health crisis to vastly expand and entrench their power in an ostensibly free society. Last week Facebook announced it was banning the use of its platform to organize many kinds of anti-lockdown protests, expanding its reach from the digital to the physical world. For its part, Twitter took the opportunity to sweepingly expand its censorship policy, heightening its role in deciding what constitutes “truth.”
...
Specifically, how does it create its rules? What experts does it turn to in crafting them? What is the review process to approve a new rule and why does the company not engage with the public more closely in formulating those rules?

Twitter’s response: That it is transparent because it publishes periodic reports summarizing how often it enforces its rules. In other words, to Twitter, “transparency” means publicizing how often it acts on its rules, not greater visibility into how those rules come to be in the first place.

In the end, the speed and scope with which social media platforms are redefining acceptable speech and allowable ideas, extending their reach into the physical world and arbitrating “truth,” remind us just how fragile democracy and free speech are as we cede an ever-greater portion of the public square to unaccountable private companies.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/28/new_twitter_censorship_rules_raise_transparency_questions_143049.html

Those are excellent points you bring up, but the question remains whether the pressure around the dissemination of Trumpisms built the pressure (or excuse) to introduce the first mild clamps. But in the end, doesn’t twitter have the right to censor or restrict anything it sees fit? Why can’t the wing nuts or communists establish their own twitter type networks, the way broadcast and print journalists have done?

@stanleybmanly Sure, I think it’s been a long time coming and they decided to take a stand now, pre-election, using Covid as the excuse because they have the public support against Trump, to a degree.

My issue is selective censorship.

Buzzfeed today reported that former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo ordered his employees to filter out abusive language directed at Barack Obama during the president’s May 2015 #AskPOTUS town hall and at Caitlyn Jenner during her Q&A on the site. According to the reporter who broke the story, Mr. Costolo told his subordinates to use both automated and manual methods to remove offending tweets. He also allegedly chose not to inform senior executives out of fear that they would object to this censorship, provoking discussion about internal Twitter strife around the free speech principles the site was based on. Mr. Costolo denies the allegations as “laughably false.”

It’s worth remembering that as a private entity, Twitter has an undisputed legal right to arbitrarily censor whatever it pleases. Nonetheless, its purported use of manual censorship to prevent critics of President Obama from venting their anger raises certain moral concerns.

https://ncac.org/news/blog/does-twitter-have-selective-censorship-problem

The way I understand it @KNOWITALL if Trump Tweets “I’ve only been married once !” The footnote will be “Check the facts.” It is not removing the tweet but points out he might be telling a lie I means approaching 19,000 lies since he took office ! SMH

There are going to be a lot of footnotes on his tweets !!!

I bet if he did tweet that some of his followers would believe, he was only married once just because he tweeted it.

I’d like to know more about that “abusive language” from the right as well as the “sexual harassment” supposedly directed rightwards. But this twitter decision is going to make Trump’s twitterfest a rather embarrassing hobby, as his tweet storms will now be littered with blue arrows. It’s actually an excellent method for tracking the lies. They should number the arrows in order that a viable list can be tabulated, and remove the guessing.

@KNOWITALL

This isn’t censorship, no matter how much people whine about it. You have the right to say whatever you wish, true or false. You do not have the right to say it from someone else’s property.

@stanleybmanly I understand that pleases you.

@Darth Okay, if you’re good with reading what they choose for you to read, enjoy. Seems pretty contradictory to their previous quote.

Not long after the post, Twitter executives began publicly touting that “Twitter is the free speech wing of the free speech party.”
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/sources-twitter-ceo-dick-costolo-secretly-censored-abusive-r

If Trump or anyone posts things and there’s a link to another site next to it, how is that any worse than Facebook removing things for their rules (like animal abuse, hate speech, etc.)? Their site, their rules. Twitter is not removing anything, they’re just linking something else.

@KNOWITALL

How about I come to your house and start shouting whatever lies or inflammatory crap I want from your yard? I trust you’ll do nothing, right? You wouldn’t want to choose what your neighbors hear, would you?

@Darth_Algar You’d be trespassing on private property so you’d be arrested. :D

If you are trying to defend twitter’s decision going back on previous statements about free speech, then feel free. I’m just not buying that it’s not biased.

I think a bias towards facts and truth is an okay bias to have, personally…

@KNOWITALL

Exactly – private property. Get it now?

The way I see it, the fool and his followers did their damnedest to force the issue. His pronouncements on the disease are right on the line of yelling “fire” in the theater

Someone in my family works on Wall Street and she has a Bloomberg terminal. Bloomberg has his own technology company and corporations pay 24k per year per terminal for employees to have this thing that gives them news, stock prices, chat, etc. This is how Bloomberg got rich.

https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/solution/bloomberg-terminal/

I just took the contact tracer training and it’s given by a Bloomberg company.

My point is that maybe Trump should use his vast holdings to create his own platform for news and social media. It won’t be altered in any way and he can say whatever he wants. Kind of like Breitbart or Fox News.

The fiery pants network! All lies all the time.

@Darth_Algar I never didn’t get it. It’s their right to do whatever they want. The last seven years it’s collapsed anyway, maybe this is a last ditch effort to remain relevant.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/04/23/a-fading-twitter-changes-its-user-metrics-once-again/#a21946a7a31e

@Soubresaut I would, too, if it was across the board for everyone equally with the same rules.

The office the President of the United States has into a joke and the only people that don’t see that think every word he says or tweet is straight from GOD.

I may give him a “Pass” on the BAD WEATHER FORECAST for Alabama getting a hurricane.

@KNOWITALL Think It is an attempt by Twitter to show every one of his lies, non-truths, fib,s and almost slanderous statements. The guy not a lily white !

He supports your viewpoint but he is a reality show host gone bad, and tyrant in his office.

White House organizes harassment of Twitter employee as Trump threatens company

There is no low that drumpf and his minions will not stoop to.

@Tropical As long as they do that for ALL tweets, fine.
Good job not using all caps and exclamation points. Much more polite. :)

@KNOWITALL , Twitter is still making a lot of money, even though they stopped posting paid political ads. Just before the pandemic, they had record earnings. Trump is certainly doing his part in boosting traffic to the site. If he is so upset with Twitter, he can stop using it, but then what would he be able to in the middle of the night?

I’ll say one thing for Trump. He has singlehandedly demolished any lofty patina or reverence previously associated with the office of President. His very appearance at that lectern bearing the Presidential seal brings to mind images such as Moe’s (stooges) head on our money. Visualize Trump’s head on Rushmore. Can you imagine enlisting in the Navy and finding yourself assigned to the supercarrier Trump? I mean living through these times is an adventure straight out of Kafka. I mean the idea that his bloated face hangs in court rooms nationwide where we stand in front of it and swear to tell the truth. It’s a Mel Brooks movie.

@KNOWITALL

Then you understand that it is not censorship.

@Darth Talk to @stanleybmanly, he used ‘censor’ in the OP.

@KNOWITALL has an agenda and anyone but King Trump and maybe Putin is wrong and not worth living in the same world a s @KNOWITALL !

@KNOWITALL

Yes, but you picked up the ball and ran with it.

@Darth In the case of Obama, it was selective censorship. In Trumps its supposedly fact-checking.
Sweet baby Jesus.

SOURCES PLEEZE @KNOWITALL

Opinions are only interesting and in the case of Fright wingers not worth listening to !

I’m OUT ! !

@KNOWITALL

And? Its a private business and they can do whatever they wish with their property. Trump is free to start his own social media platform if he can’t bear it. If he’s as wealthy he claims it shouldn’t be difficult for him.

Trump referred to it as censorship in his recent posts on Twitter.

Today on the news they talked about him wanting to change the laws now. Apparently he’s very upset.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

@Tropical_Willie I already did above.
@Darth Wouldn’t that be interesting.

@KNOWITALL

Interesting? I doubt it. Probably just tacky and gaudy and the site would look like a blinged-out MySpace page from 2007.

It is infuriating for the fool because it subjects his twitter fests to instant fact checking as part of every tweet. In other words, every lie, exaggeration or misrepresentation is identified as such the moment it is uttered. Believe me, a blue arrow advising the reader to look up the facts is for Trump devastating censorship. It visually reduces his twitter rants to blue arrow collages. The lies will jump out at you without your having to read them. His incessant tweets will initiate the game of “count the arrows” and I for one can’t wait to play.

Anything Trump says, you will say is a lie. Mainly because you are trying to put another narrative out there, but also because you are trying to put in the heads of others that Trump is a compulsive, constant liar.

The combined percentage of drumpf’s statements, ranging from “mostly false” to “pants on fire”, is 69 percent. https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Him being a compulsive liar is not a narrative, but a fact.

@stanleybmanly You want to do a “Shots game” where when one of his Tweets hits ten blue arrows, you have to down a shot glass of schnapps ?

Bet ya we’d be blasted in two hours.

I look forward to the future when each time any politician appears on TV or tweets…there’s an instant link shown on the screen that fact checks his or her statements.

It may not be illegal to lie but political leaders who have real responsibilities must be held accountable for the lies they tell.

@Yellowdog I haven’t laughed so hard in a long time. Thank You. It cracks me up that you believe people would not know Trump is a compulsive liar unless I talked them into it. I really cannot stop laughing as I wonder just who has put WHAT in your head. It’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in weeks. The very thought that a functioning adult hasn’t noticed that Trump is a compulsive liar is so far fetched a joke that you deserve an award.

Trump is a compulsive, consistent liar. This was evident to pretty much anyone and everyone long before he ever ran for president.

@KNOWITALL—A certain federal leader seems eager to find ways to leverage the weight of government to crack down on private companies’ abilities to address lies published on their websites by users, and is doing so in apparent retaliation to that happening to him personally.

I’m assuming that if censorship is an issue with private companies, then it’s many times morefold an issue coming from the executive branch of government. Do you agree? Do you also worry about the threat of censorship in this development of the story?

@Soubresaut I’m interested and concerned, yes.

Many of my friends have been in Facebook jail for posting Libertarian, anti-govt posts and other things, so it’s not just Trump.

The fact is they’ve had unlimited power to edit, restrict, hide or alter communications, which I disagree with. Fact-checking is one thing, but that’s not all this is about, as I posted earlier.

@KNOWITALL—Okay, can we then also agree that a media company fact-checking the claims made by users is not censorship? And that Trump’s whining about this specific issue is without merit (which is perhaps why you are expanding the scope of the question), and his reactions to this specific issue are more concerning than the act of fact checking?

@Soubresaut I already posted all that above.

He has valid points that the FCC will determine.

I’m expanding because I researched and the outrage wasn’t there when they censored hard questions from Obama’s town hall.

Just like freedom of religion, it applies across the noard for all religions.

If you tweet incorrect facts, you should be flagged just like Trump is. That’s one thing Facebook did correctly. Show us it’s equal or stop.

@KNOWITALL—“If you tweet incorrect facts, you should be flagged just like Trump is”—I wasn’t clear on whether you felt that way from what I’d read above, thank you for clarifying. I don’t necessarily agree with your feeling that it’s being applied unevenly according to political leanings, which is why I wanted to see what we do agree on.

(In reference to the Twitter Townhall/Q&A—the article you link about it points out that Twitter was using algorithms specifically to filter out abusive and hateful tweets, specifically during Q&A sessions, and that it was a practice used for Q&A sessions more generally, not only for the one with Obama. Using an algorithm to filter out trolling seems like a reasonable first step towards sorting through Tweets to find meaningful questions for a public discussion, doesn’t it? And isn’t doing that closer to escorting hecklers out of an audience, or of the Fluther moderators filtering out flamebait on this site, than it is to “selective censorship”?)

@Soubresaut If they provided definitions and outline the rules but they have not.

I don’t feel fluther is a great example because so many people left because all the Flamebait was tolerated, and still is, if it’s anti-Trump. That’s why we don’t flag them anymore, it was pointless.

If five percent of what most if you say about Trump were true, he would not be POTUS.

@KNOWITALL

That’s laughable. Flamebait of all types gets modded all the time here. You’re on here enough to know that full and well.

@Darth I’m not complaining but I’m not laughing either. To me, it’s no shining example. I could give examples but probably not appropriate. Later.

@Darth_Algar Do we know a laughable ?

Isn’t Trump himself flame bait?

Actually, it’s hard to make a case against warnings to “check the facts”. Twitter has already blue penciled Trump’s latest lying tweets about voter fraud, and he’s hopping mad about it. Isn’t it interesting that a rejection of lies is now “a bias against conservatism”?

Wait WAIT WAIT Conservatives love lies and Trump’s lies more than God or Jesus .

@KNOWITALL—It seems like we agree that these companies having content policies does not mean they are censoring anyone, and that your main concern is that they aren’t explaining the rules, which makes it unclear whether they are applying those rules fairly. Is that an accurate restatement of your position? (And if that is your position, may I add that you are giving Trump way too much credit if you are suggesting that is his position as well).

It seems to me like they are explaining the rules.

Following links embedded in one of your articles (I’m not looking at the editorializing the articles provided, just the explanations they’re quoting from Facebook and Twitter):

Facebook (link):
“A spokesperson confirmed that ‘events that defy government’s guidance on social distancing aren’t allowed on Facebook” and that it was removing content promoting or organizing such rallies.

As part of its efforts, the company ‘reached out to state officials to understand the scope of their orders’ and to ‘remove the posts when gatherings do not follow the health parameters established by the government and are therefore unlawful.’

In cases where state governments still permit socially distanced protests, Facebook is allowing the events to be organized on its platform as long as the protest explicitly requires all participants to maintain social distance.”

Not “anti-lockdown,” but a company not wanting a role in organizing events that go against current laws. I think there’s probably a discussion there, and I’m not entirely sure what I think about it, but it does seem like that would be a different discussion to have than Facebook being biased against certain political viewpoints.

Twitter (link):
”... has ‘broadened our definition of harm to address content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information’ and noted that ‘we may also apply the public interest notice in cases where world leaders violate the COVID-19 guidelines.’”

I bolded two parts to mark where there are links embedded in article’s text. Following them leads to two different Twitter blog posts explaining Twitter’s policies in some detail. Here and here. Both are from nearly a year ago.

@Soubresaut Yeah its certainly not the Free Speech platform they proclaimed it to be.
I don’t expect Trump haters to care but I do because the Freedom of Speech is more important than any one man, to me. Have a nice day.

Lies and propaganda are not Free Speech.

His hate speech is not Free Speech.

I understand some people have the same views but a lie is a lie.

@Tropical Wrong.

free·dom of speech
noun
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

Additionally now he has a new warning from Twitter for ‘glorifying violence’. Absurd.

https://www.ky3.com/content/news/Twitter-adds-glorifying-violence-warning-to-Trump-tweet-570858981.html

The bad news is that Trump does not care about police violence. The good news is that Twitter was not intimidated by Trump’s executive order.

Only from your perspective.
Frankly, drumpf should have been banned from Twitter years ago.

Forgetting about the twitter side of this, let’s concentrate on the quality of leadership. It is presidential to say “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”?

Somehow advocating violence and murder doesn’t seem very presidential. I guess Trumpies have written off the black vote.

@KNOWITALL

Yes, he received a warning because he violated the site’s rules. Rules that he agreed to upon signing up.

FREE SPEECH

Yes, he said on Twitter they should start shooting people in Minneapolis !

For sure he’s not going to get any “People of Color” to vote for him in November.

Maybe his plan is toikill them all by then. J.K.

@elbanditoroso I guess it’s easier to swallow coming from Obama.

“To be concerned about these issues is not to be against law enforcement,” he said. ”When people say black lives matter, it doesn’t mean blue lives don’t matter.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-war-on-cops-police-advocacy-group-225291

@Darth Ahhh, so the article I published earlier was from April of 2016. They just happened to change from the Freedom of Speech party (their words) after Trump won. Got it. Quite a coincidence on that timing.

Trumps first tweet was in 2009.
https://time.com/5412016/donald-trump-realdonaldtrump-twitter-first-tweet/

@KNOWITALL

At this point you’re just being willfully obtuse. You know damn good and well when you create an account on a site you agree to abide by their terms, and if you do not abide the terms then the site may take action. Threatening violence has never been acceptable on Twitter and has always been a violation of their terms of use.

@Darth_Algar It’s clearly political bias and you just don’t want to admit it.

Dec 2017 Twitter Policy (from a liberal site/ not pro-Trump):
Under Twitter’s policies, specific threats of violence, death, or disease to an individual or a group of people was already considered a violation. The new rules will apply to accounts including those that affiliate themselves with organizations that “use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.” Twitter says it will require tweets that glorify violence or the perpetrators of a violent act to be removed, and will permanently suspend accounts that repeatedly violate this rule.

There is one notable exception: the policy changes don’t apply to military or government entities. That would seemingly give President Trump carte blanche to continue his threats against “the little rocket man,” and to continue promoting violent xenophobic videos favored by far-right extremists, even when they’ve been disproven as fake news.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/18/16789606/twitter-new-safety-policies-hate-groups

March 2019 Twitter policy:
We may make limited exceptions for groups that have reformed or are currently engaging in a peaceful resolution process, as well as groups with representatives who have been elected to public office through democratic elections. We may also make exceptions related to the discussion of terrorism or extremism for clearly educational or documentary purposes. This policy also doesn’t apply to military or government entities.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/violent-groups

@KNOWITALL

And they made an exception. The post is still up, available for all to see, only with a notice that the post violates their ToU, but that it may still be in the public interest to be left up. An exception was made, so what in Sweet Baby Jesus’ name is your point?

@Darth_Algar The point is that they are changing the rules based on political bias/climate. If you’re good with that, so be it. I am not.

And frankly “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”, is a factual statement and not glorifying violence in my opinion. That’s what happens during riots.

It’s censorship when the government does it.

I’m always conflicted on periodicals or social media platforms controlling the information written on their websites. Generally, I side with getting rid of information that can cause harm.

I remember years ago comments below an article (I think it was in the Detroit Free Press) that were antisemitic. A lot of people called for the comments to be deleted. It was not what a journalist wrote, it was commentary by readers. As far as I know they let the comments stay out. Does that make the periodical antisemitic?

@KNOWITALL—I’m legitimately confused. You remember that “blue lives matter” was a reaction to “black lives matter” where people were acting like saying that black people shouldn’t be murdered by cops was the same thing as saying that cops should be killed instead, that black lives matter was a nothing more than a hate group, and that there was no systemic racism present in the police force that needed to be addressed? And that Obama’s statement was a pretty clear appeal to bridge the divide in the country, and recognize that we all want the same thing—equal, just treatment of citizens?

That is not the same thing as a tweet that seems to imply executive use of military firepower against citizens.

And that difference seems pretty obvious, so that must not be the comparison you were trying to make. Right?

(Also, I asked in my last post whether your main concern was that the rules were unclear, since it seemed like we agreed that the examples of bias presented in those news articles didn’t necessarily show much bias. I then offered examples of Facebook and Twitter explaining their rules. Was that not your main concern, then?)

@KNOWITALL “The point is that they are changing the rules based on political bias/climate.”

Except they aren’t.

“And frankly “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”, is a factual statement and not glorifying violence in my opinion.”

Of course you don’t think it’s promoting, threatening or glorifying violence. Of course you don’t…

@Soubresaut My main concern is that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are showing political bias in content management, which erodes the Freedom of Speech.

@Darth I showed you earlier they are with links and sources.

How do you think most riots end, Darth? With people throwing daisies and singing kumbaya?

@KNOWITALL—it’s not at all clear that they actually are doing that, but I don’t have a problem with wanting evidence to confirm one way or the other. Do you acknowledge that people having an issue with Trump’s behavior on this isn’t that they’re “Trump haters,” rather that they recognize he’s not actually concerned about the general public’s freedom of speech (as you say you are), and that he’s angry at Twitter because his own statements have been contextualized with facts?

Whether or not Trump is able to get his way, his desire to use the government to prevent others from saying things that upset him personally seems like more of a threat to free speech than a company trying to implement a fact checking policy.

@Soubresaut No, I do not. I think the constant state of outrage speaks for itself.

Let’s use the Covfefe situation as an example, shall we? He mistyped “coverage” apparently, and joked about it. It turned into a circus and ended with an Actual Covfefe Act, (which actually is a legal requirement of all public officials in my state.)
It was a mistype, it was funny banter with our President-kinda cool, but ends with a running joke about how stupid he is. Mean-spirited, to say the least. And it hasn’t stopped, he’s tired of it, we’re all tired of it. Let the man do his job for once.

Oh so Trump isn’t allowed to play the same game the Dems do? Like with Kavanaugh, when they knew for a fact it happened in high school and literally knew he hadn’t raped her or anything and STILL tried to destroy him while wasting millions of taxpayer dollars?

It’s not a game; he is the President ! You are missing the point !!
No other President in recent history has belittled, threatened and made racist statements like your 6th grader hero.

And your opinion is the Dem’s are playing a game, because they are not supporting the Conservative and right-wing agenda.

@Tropical_Willie What is your actual point, Willie? Is there a question or are you just talking to yourself?

@KNOWITALL—we have a different memory of how that played out, so let’s go with your version. Does feeling like people are being mean-spirited with their free speech at all affect whether it is right for a President to seek the weight of government to stop a company from fact-checking the statements he makes on their website? Would he be right for seeking the weight of government against individuals who are “being mean-spirited” with their free speech?

Trump acting on a personal vendetta he has against Twitter does not in any way reflect upon your own positions regarding free speech. So why defend him as if it does?

Everyone is tired. It’s exhausting to watch people bend over backwards to defend this man. Tweets do not affect a President’s ability to do his job.

Let’s please not shift to just naming things the “other side did” that were worse, because we will be here all day, derail the thread, and never agree. Republican leaders stole a SCOTUS appointment from a sitting president because they wanted to appoint a justice who aligned with their ideology. So really, let’s not get into it.

@Soubresaut We aren’t going to agree on anything more than likely. I’ve seen your anti-Trump posts here, but I thought I’d give you the benefit of the doubt, especially after you PM’d me.

Enjoy another four years, amigos, you certainly worked hard to secure him a second term.

To any in this thread who have maintained that mail-in ballot fraud does not occur— and there is no risk…

I have had a mail-in ballot arrive within the past two weeks from the person who had the apartment before me. This is the only mail-in ballot I have ever received in the mail that isn’t mine.

And although my sister has not lived at my parents’ house since 1989, she had a mail-in ballot arrive at my parent’s house. I guess its because she first registered to vote while living here, and maybe that never changed.

What shall I do with these?

Hmmmm….

@Yellowdog are you honest or dishonest?

You have described clerical errors, not fraud.

@Yellowdog

What state is mailing out absentee ballot currently ?

My state you have to request an absentee ballot in writing with current address….

Oh, people were being “mean spirited” about “covfefe”? Well boo-fucking-hoo. Frankly, I’m a little tired of the whining about “mean spirited” and “unfair” from the “fuck your feelings” cult. You want to see mean spirited? Take a good, honest look at your fuckopotamus of a leader.

If anything, I am convinced that a major reason Trump gets away with his crudities is that he is not confronted nearly enough with opposition willing to match him with equally contemptible vulgarities. Decorum and courtesy extended toward Trump is equivalent to rules of decorum in a street fight.