The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

The POTUS
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/...710b8701a1f64d

Sounds more like some "basement dwelling rage monster"

[jelgate]

We should start Twitter wars with Trump. His uninformed rants are hilarious

[Gatefan1976]

We should start Twitter wars with Trump. His uninformed rants are hilarious

Worse, they are government policy.
That's why I don't get why people just "ignore them", they are representative of the office of POTUS.

[jelgate]

I don't ignore them

[Gatefan1976]

I don't ignore them

Many do.

[thekillman]

Twitter should've grown a pair and banned him ages ago. People have been banned from it for far, far less.

[Gatefan1976]

Twitter should've grown a pair and banned him ages ago. People have been banned from it for far, far less.

I don't expect anything from America to have a pair, just a profit margin.

[Annoyed]

Twitter should've grown a pair and banned him ages ago. People have been banned from it for far, far less.

Why? Because he says things that you don't agree with? Never heard of free speech?

[jelgate]

Contrary to popular belief a website does not have to allow free speech anymore than any other website. You don't even have free speech here. There are many times where Trump had bullied or posted hate speech which is against rules of most social media platforms.

[Annoyed]

I'm well aware that a private service does not have to honor free speech.

But for someone to suggest that someone be banned from a service of that nature says something about the person who wants to ban someone and how they feel about free speech. Good for me, but not so good for thee, if thee disagrees with me seems to be what I'm picking up here.

[jelgate]

I don't think it's unreasonable for a social media platform to want to prevent people from using it's platform to encourage violence and racism.

[Annoyed]

We've had this discussion before. I'm of the view that all speech should be allowed, and the audience decides the value of said speech, to be ignored or whatever at the discretion of the listener.

[jelgate]

Not really a smart business move

[thekillman]

We've had this discussion before. I'm of the view that all speech should be allowed, and the audience decides the value of said speech, to be ignored or whatever at the discretion of the listener.

We ban trolls from forums, and toxic people from games.

And like i said, Twitter has banned people for less. Why can Trump incite hatred and be racist yet continue to have an account, whereas it's against Twitter policy to do so?

Just an excerpt:

Abuse: You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice.

Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. Read more about our hateful conduct policy.

But rules don't apply to the rich boy, apparently

We've had this discussion before. I'm of the view that all speech should be allowed, and the audience decides the value of said speech, to be ignored or whatever at the discretion of the listener.

This would also make moderators powerless to ban trolls, or people looking to flame. The internet is toxic enough as it is.

[Annoyed]

Personally, I don't like the nation's business being conducted via social networking. It is beneath the dignity of the office, in my opinion.
But the old methods doesn't work when the mass media actively opposes this administration, or is so pro-active in promoting the prior administration, or the Democrats candidates such as Hillary.

The media is simply supposed to report the news, not attempt to alter it or control it.

So I can't really blame Trump for trying to bypass it to get his message out.

But why do YOU want to silence him? What's wrong with letting him have his say, and let everyone decide the value of what is said on their own? If you think he's an idiot and want to ignore whatever he says, fine that is your right. But you want to prevent others from hearing his message as well.

Why? What if Twitter was owned by people who backed Trump, and they banned Obama, Hillary or the Democrats in general? Same thing you're proposing, but in reverse. You still think it's a good idea?