Slashdot Mirror
Why Does Twitter Refuse To Shut Down Donald Trump? (vortex.com)
Lauren Weinstein writes: The conclusion appears inescapable. Twitter apparently has voluntarily chosen to 'look the other way' while Donald Trump spews forth a trolling stream of hate and other abuses that would cause any average Twitter user to be terminated in a heartbeat. There's always room to argue the proprietary or desirability of any given social media content terms of service — or the policy precepts through which they are applied. It is also utterly clear that if such rules are not applied to everyone with the same vigor, particularly when there's an appearance of profiting by making exceptions for particular individuals, the moral authority on which those rules are presumably based is decimated, pointless, and becomes a mere fiction.
Would you rather Twitter shut down no account ever, apply a sort of white-listing policy, or something in the middle?
Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?
You stupid leftist idiot.
Twitter could be destroyed, or at least heavily damaged, by the republican party if it took a side. Also, like it or not, Trump is the leading republican candidate.
(((Weinstein)))
Twitter users can block.
Twitter should only shut down accounts which violate laws.
Feelings are subjective.
...But if I was him, I'd give Trump all the rope he needs to hang himself with.
Free speech is free speech. Everyone else is free to ignore it. If a radical idea catches on, so fucking what. Twitter should not be shutting down Donald Trump and Lauren Weinstein should quit whining about it like free speech is some sort of threat.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
I propose a test: Create an alternate account and re-post the same things Donald Trump posts. Maybe change the names/groups mentioned in order to protect the innocent.
Then, if Twitter shuts you down, you would have a pretty open and shut case as to preferential and selective treatment.
Deal with it. Just because you aren't voting for a person in a election doesn't mean every opinion of theirs must be silenced at all costs. Give them enough rope to hang themselves if you think someone is such a monster...
Just because you don't agree (or are insulted) with the man or his policies doesn't mean he should be censored. When he begins calling for the gruesome death of all people who don't agree with him (e.g. ISIL), then we will have something to talk about. The only reason this article has ANYTHING to do with Slashdot is cuz Twitter. Can we get back to technology stuffy, please?
Here in the United States we have something called the First Amendment which protects "Free Speech. That includes criticizing opportunistic Muslim migrants that are also potential terrorists.
The very asking of the headline question reeks of "freedom of speech as long as it's the right one".
People should be able to discern speech the agree with vs. speech they don't on their own after considering every opinion made.
Speech "carriers" have all the right to censor the speech in their media as they see fit (not being the government and all) but the very moment the prevent someone to speak their mind on their platform (no matter how radical they may sound) they forfeit their right to call themselves "a bastion of free speech" and become the same as every other news media: a place to broadcast the views of their owners and target audience, no more, no less.
In conclusion, every company have the right to pick and choose what they want to enable to be said on their property but as soon as they choose to censor they become yet another biased source just like every other else.
There are already numerous allegations of Twitter censoring and unverifying the political right or pro-gamergate folks such as Milo Yiannopoulos. Trump is actually a big attention grabber and he is capturing lots of media attention, so censoring him would hurt Twitter more.
A better question may be why they haven't come down harder on terrorist activities on Twitter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
News for libtard SJWs? Stuff that hurts their feelings.
They allow ISIS which is worse in my opinion. The bottom line; If you don't like what someone is saying ignore them. We are grown-ups. (some of us anyway)
I didn't see anything in there inciting violence or otherwise illegal. I can't see any solid grounds for shutting him down. Obviously, a political rival is just whining.
He who has the gold, makes the rules. And boy, does Trump have the gold.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Being a presidential candidate doesn't grant you the right to violate terms of service. Of course, it does mean people are more likely to let it slide. But it does make a mockery of their "no hate speech" nonsense.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Short version: Why should they?
Long version: I find him reprehensible, and find his positions stupid and indefensible, because I'm, I guess, a liberal or leftie or maybe even progressive. According to a number of posts here, I, as a liberal, am supposed to want Trump to be silenced. I do not. Political candidates, no matter how much I don't like them, get, and should get, a podium. Freedom of the news and freedom of speech are more sacred than my desire not to be offended or annoyed.
Amplifying that, I suspect that the desire to not have to be exposed to the likes of DT is more dangerous than DT itself. I am very worried by people on whatever side of whatever issue, who wish to simply silence their opposition. Both sides of an issue frequently have a view the other side should listen to carefully, and not dismiss casually.
Don't step on the baby.
The headline presumes a lot of things.
Read the actually Twitter account and it's relatively bland, in pages of tweets I couldn't see anything that would cause an account from anyone to be suspended.
Its amazing how furious trump makes people, and sad how they themselves must lie to try and shut down someone they disagree with.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Twitter, being a private entity, can make whatever policies they want and kick anyone off for almost any reason. All these responses about BLAH CENSORSHIP and BLAH FIRST AMENDMENT and BLAH FREE SPEECH are nonsense. Twitter can set whatever content standards it wants.
That said, you have to be really careful when political speech is involved. Even if Trump really is violating their policies (I don't know he is, I just don't follow him because he's an idiot saying idiotic things), kicking him off might constitute an illegal campaign contribution to everyone else.
Political speech is a live wire they likely don't want to touch.
Being a candidate gives you the right to email above-top-secret information in the clear and not immediately go to prison... why wouldn't it allow you to post "supposedly" bad stuff on twitter?
If the new owners are listening, this is exactly the sort of story that doesn't belong on Slashdot. The technical angle (Twitter?) is minimal, the political content is strong, and most of the commenters have big ugly political axes to grind.
Hopefully this is an aberration. If you just want to post clickbait and stir up outrage, this isn't the site for me.
If, on the other hand, you wanted to talk about the algorithm Twitter uses, or the resources and methods required to enforce Twitter policies, you might have a nerdish angle.
But to ask readers whether or not they approve of Trump on Twitter is trolling, and makes me wonder about your "new" direction.
Can we stop calling opposing political opinions "trolling" and "hate speech"?
The word has lost all meaning at this point.
Unless people actually think Trump is doing what he is doing for the lulz and purely to bother people.
How?
What hate speech is he posting?
Saying Yeb is low energy is hate speech now?
Calling Trump a fascist and demanding he not be permitted to speak is such delightful irony that I pray the writer did it on purpose. Or, they are missing the point of liberal, modern civilization so badly that they should go back to school. And, no, I don't approve of Donald Trump. He can go hump an a-bomb for all I care.
You think I want censorship? I'm a classic liberalist, so no I don't. I'm simply pointing out that most people who do want censorship are on the far left.
Let them do what they want. Now, I'm not sure what made Twitter so popular to begin with. but there is no reason simple word of mouth can't help to find alternatives when user restrictions start popping up. It is the restricted monopolistic market which makes corporate censorship an issue. The real problem comes from the way internet access is so tightly controlled and makes competition so difficult. We have to demand a dumb pipe so that we can connect directly to each other. The entire system is way too fragile and brittle. It seems that way by design, so the authorities can shut it down with the drop of a single anchor. Ma Bell still rules...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
BizX: first order of business is to kick garbage stories from Lauren to the curb. He is doing nothing but hurt this site. This is not Slashdot.
"Why do you think Twitter hasn't enforced their own Terms of Service rules when it comes to Donald Trump?"
Well: Trump equals attention, attention equals visitors, visitors equal ad impressions, ad impressions equal money.
In case someone didn't notice:
Attention (not regard or esteem) has become a de facto currency in the last years.
How do you think people like Limbaugh, Beck or Trump can make a living? From honest work? Please don't make me laugh. They use their hate and bully-ness to create attention which they monetize.
You find the mechanisms at work in Gamergate or Puppygate or whatever the attention whores come up with :-(.ï
>" Would you rather Twitter shut down no account ever, apply a sort of white-listing policy, or something in the middle?"
Have never used Twitter, and probably never will, so I don't really care. But, free speech and all- nobody is forcing you to listen to anyone you don't want to.
Be careful for what you wish for.
I live in Poland. I use Slashdot for a long time.
I remember first Obama campaign and pathetic political propaganda on Digg. Not just bad, it was really pathetic.
Looks like you will never learn, now there is a huge anti-Trump propaganda on Slashdot.
Twitter should shut down his account? What about facebook? Google?
Why this community is so brainwashed?
Fuck building a wall. Just put high powered lasers that will incinerate anything that crosses the line. As for illegals already in the country, we should send SWAT teams to raid to their homes.
Also, we should require valid legal resident documentation in order to rent a home.
The principle of free speech is not dependent on the 1st amendment. Free speech is a universally recognized human right and is the single most important defining characteristic of any society that lays claim to being free and open. So while private publishing companies like Twitter have the recognized right to control what messages appear on their platform, it should an anathema to all free thinking people to see others whom they disagree with on ideological terms be stripped of the opportunity to be heard in the same venue.
Twitter gets to decide how they like to enforce their policies, and shutting down honest discussion and posting of truth on a political or social issue by someone, candidate or not, would be shameful, and drive people away from Twitter.
Nobody has shown proof of a Twitter ToS violation by Trump on Twitter.
The guy's team posted some Tweets which became controversial; However, all the tweats claimed to be "Racist" appear to not be racist, unless you have a colored interpretation driven by a politically biased agenda against Trump.
Anti-trump bloggers describing Trump's postings as ToS violations are "Seeing what they want to see".
How dit this idiocy reach the front page of slashdot. Is this the new management at work?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
They have a "no hate speech" clause? They must not enforce at all, or have a very biased idea of what hate speech is.
If Trump were harassing another twitter user or advocating harassing them then yes his account would get banned.
Merely expressing offensive thoughts directed at noone in particular does not get you banned.
No im not s trump fan...at all
If the US votes Trump, the US deserves Trump. Everything works out either way.
Because a guy who is going out of his way to show his complete contempt for everything from the Bill of Rights to basic human decency will just make things so keen.
What do you suppose would happen if someone like Trump were elected President? Do you think the Supreme Court and Congress would just take a holiday and let him play out his Fascist dictator fantasies? His time in the White House would be horrible for everyone involved. Congress would spend most of its time dispensing with his vetoes, defunding any department he tried to turn to whatever idiotic or evil plan (if you can call what he does "planning") he had in mind. The Oval Office would resemble Nixon on steroids, as it would be the first time in over forty years that a POTUS had almost no friends on the Hill. About the only place there would be activity would be the Federal Courts and SCOTUS as Congress and everyone else that Trump screws takes his Administration to court, likely ending in impeachment for any of a dozen flagrant, even proud high crimes and misdemeanors.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
to do just that. Every time he says something nutso his poll numbers go up. Thing is, white working class America knows something is wrong, but they don't know what to do about it. They don't believe in the income inequality fairy, but they do know that they're losing ground. Their kids aren't going to college, or if they are they leave a public university with $60k in debt. They haven't seen a raise in years that wasn't immediately eaten up by price increases.
What they want and need is the Nordic Model. But they haven't got a chance. Most of these guys spend 2 hours a day commuting to their shitty jobs listening to Rush. They spent their childhood being told that if you work hard and play by the rules and don't get ahead it's your fault. Heck, when the millennials started complaining about the 60 hour work weeks with no benefits or job security or even food security they scoffed at them. They don't want help. They were told they could make it on their own. The keep getting told this by billionaires and their media outlets. I've tried reasoning with them but it's no go. They've got an answer for every point I make spoon fed to them by those same billionaires.
But they still know something's wrong. Trumps the only man they got.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Congress would spend most of its time dispensing with his vetoes, defunding any department he tried to turn to whatever idiotic or evil plan (if you can call what he does "planning") he had in mind.
why woudl you think this? repubs own both halves of congress, and while I don't think they'll go in for his most radical stuff, they're not going to outwardly challenge or overrule him.
I'm not saying yes, I'm not saying no. Check her posting history and have a bloody good laugh.
Ummm, I mean check her posting history and make your own mind up. Yes, that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
FTFY
Twitter's heavy handed censorship has already made them little more than a political echo chamber with a few trolls and self-promoting celebrities thrown in. They are in a death spiral.
This is the kind of story that belongs elsewhere. Hey, new owners, let's keep /. tech focused.
A blog post from a left wing troll?
You mean convict. Presidents removed from office via impeachment are not sent to jail.
Twitter is certainly obligated to apply the rules that they do have in an evenhanded manner.
"Obligated?" Is this the very first case of self-interested hypocrisy you've ever encountered?
In grown-up land, individuals (and corporate individuals, naturally) don't have to enforce their rules. Governments can be sued to act, but individuals don't have such an affirmative obligation; suits are filed the other way; that is, if Trump felt he was being censored unfairly, he might have a course of action, but YOU do not have such a remedy when YOU want a term-of-service applied to someone else.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
Why so much hate toward Hitler, Shlomo? Hitler did nothing wrong. God bless his soul - he was one Great Man to stand up against the evil and speak the truth. A true martyr.
If it were true that "Americans love personal freedom above pretty much everything else" we wouldn't have an income tax, "social security", medicare, the DEA, the FDA, the BATF, paper money, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Labor, the Department of Transportation, and "swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance". Too many Americans have chosen an easy life and unthinking forgiveness over freedom.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Can you give an example of this "hate speech"? There is a difference between "hate speech" and "I don't like what I just heard" or "he just made (me / group xyz) take a hard look at themselves"
She writes a vague blog post that doesn't give a single actual example of a tweet that someone should be banned for, and it makes a slashdot headline... should we thank the new owners? How about this: most of that kind of content is subjective, which means twitter can do whatever it wants. For the record, I like neither twitter nor Trump, but this kind of whining, no matter which side it comes from, is very unbecoming.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Wrong. A SUCCESSFUL impeachment requires 2/3 of the Senate to vote for conviction. They didn't even get a simple majority.
Dollars to donuts the same shithead is conducting both sides of this...
The "establishment" (who make up the majority of both Houses) Republicans are not exactly in his corner. I doubt they'll play along with anything that they think would be detrimental to their party, and especially their own jobs when mid-term elections come around.
No, he was impeached by the House. He was then acquitted rather than convicted by the Senate.
The impeachment was completely successful, else the Senate would never have weighed in.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
FWIW Trump supporters tend to be people of moderate to low education who see severe problems, and who see a successful person boldly claiming he can fix those problems. They don't see the arrogant, dishonest, inconsistent narcissist who's perfectly happy to violate your rights.
Careful thinkers both left and right oppose Trump.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Trump draws the dots and lets his supporters connect them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why does Lauren Weinstein want to shut down what is clearly political speech? You may find it hateful, vulgar, inspiring, whatever, but it is coming from someone running for office.
Personally, I wish that Twitter didn't exist at all.
Did a libtard SJW submit this story? They really hate free speech.
Free speech becomes hate speech. Speaking your mind becomes frowned on.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Free speech is irrelevant to the case of Trump vs. Twitter.
The First Amendment of the US constitution protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.
But Twitter is not the government. If Twitter wants to kick Trump off its service because they don't like what he says, they're entitled to do so. And the government can't stop Twitter from doing so, because First Amendment. And the government can't stop Trump from starting his own Twitter, again because First Amendment.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
You're pretty optimistic.
Suppose Trump's elected. The House is going to be Republican no matter what -- and any surge of right-wing support sufficient to elect Trump is likely to swing down-ticket races rightward too, so you could very well see the Senate go Republican too.
Let's walk through a more realistic scenario:
Who appoints new justices to the Supreme Court? Oh, right, El Presidente. The sitting Justices are aged 61, 79, 79, 67, 82 (!), 77, 65, 61, and 55. Wanna add four years to those numbers and bet there are no vacancies?
Why is this? As a Congressman, my job is to get re-elected. If my party's Presidential candidate wants to build the New Berlin Wall or an English Language Reeducation Camp (or a DeMuslification Faith-Based Organization), it'd be counterproductive to do anything else for a Republican Congressman to do anything other than support it enthusiastically. Otherwise I get primaried out and replaced in the midterms with someone who will support it.
And the third Administration of the past Three in which a POTUS has complete unfettered access via the intelligence community to the dossiers of all his political opponents. The difference is that neither Bush II nor Obama appear to have seriously abused this power. (Thanks, Mr. Snowden! If they had, the journalists in posession of your data dump would have found it and blown the whistle by now!)
You mean, "the Federal Courts, where the Attorneys were replaced by party loyalists as is customary for every administration, a Supreme Court in which at least one, and possibly three or four, Justices have been replaced by Trump nominees and confirmed by a narrow-majority Republican Senate, and a Congress full of people who would never impeach a President from their own party under any circumstances, on pain of being primaried out of office before the midterms."
Do I think Trump's electable? No. Do I think he should be banninated from Twitter? Hell, no.
Are the Legislative and Judicial branches capable of stopping a rogue Executive? Absolutely capable of doing so, every day since some time after the close of the Civil War until the present and straight on through January 21st, 2017.
Do I think, that the specific case of a Trump-appointed Judiciary and a Republican Legislature will be willing to stop him in, say, September 2018? September 2020? Regrettably, I do not. And that's the $10 trillion dollar gamble.
How dit this idiocy reach the front page of slashdot. Is this the new management at work?
Not just that, but "Lauren Weinstein writes" about an article of ..... badum-tsss: Lauren Weinstein!
Shameless self-plugging by a communist individual. Who the F. cares? Why the F is this even on /.? News for nerds? No, I'm a nerd and I don't give an F.
Every time he says something nutso his poll numbers go up.
No, generally he says things that defy PC groupthink and then people like you wonder why he is popular...
It's honestly not that hard to figure out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And that's the usual, threats, etc...
As for the speech we don't like? It's up to them. The First Amendment applies to the government. Twitter can do whatever it wants.
Personally, I like the haters using Twitter. It's making it very clear, very quickly, just who is who. Trump is making an International ass of himself. Glorious!
Also, the First Amendment does not contain a shield. The answer to free speech we don't like is more free speech. So, that means we don't or should not ask Twitter to shut Trump down, unless it's criminal. And that also means we simply use Twitter to tell everyone just how big of an asshole Trump actually is!
Passes Popcorn Bowl to the right. Crunch, crunch....
Blogging because I can...
Don't be sure that if Donald Trump speech were sanitized, that there wouldn't be even more people supporting him. Filtering Trump won't magically make him any more enlightened.
Congress would spend most of its time dispensing with his vetoes, defunding any department he tried to turn to whatever idiotic or evil plan (if you can call what he does "planning") he had in mind.
why woudl you think this? repubs own both halves of congress, and while I don't think they'll go in for his most radical stuff, they're not going to outwardly challenge or overrule him.
Maybe because Trump is not a Republican? He just plays one on TV.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Be smart.
Don't be a Twit.
That is all.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
I think there are sensible solutions that preserve the basic concepts of a Democratic Republic. The *problem* is, most people running for office right now are too extreme to the "left" or "right", while others dropped out early because they just weren't cut out to do public speaking and debate.
I'm not at all convinced the "Nordic model" is the answer for the United States.
While he's not ideal, Rand Paul has been consistently talking common sense and at least by the judgement of many bloggers -- winning the debates. Problem is, he doesn't raise his voice or say anything "crazy" that creates a media frenzy of attention around him. Essentially, he doesn't make entertaining enough "political reality TV" for the networks like Trump does, so they just try to tune him out. IMO, he'd do far more for people, if elected, than Trump ever will.
And who are all these people who supposedly scoffed at millennials for complaining of 60 hour work weeks and no benefits? If anything, I'd say that much of this claimed "difference of opinion about jobs" between generations is manufactured B.S. Whenever you get the Gen X, the Gen Y and the millennial crowd together in an argument online about jobs/careers, you find a pretty even distribution of people who think alike across the entire age spectrum. The only thing I've ever been able to identify as different with millennials is that because they're young and typically single, their priorities naturally revolve around the things that matter to young, single people. No rocket science there .... (So, for example, they aren't faced with the time pressures of older people raising families. That means they might claim to prefer to "blend work and free time" together as a ball of multitasking. Doesn't mean Americans are doomed because "we've all been suckered into taking our work home with us and can't separate the two anymore", or any of that nonsense.)
What's wrong is pretty simple. We don't have enough businesses in America able to hire people at "middle class" wages, vs. the number of people who WANT that type of employment. If you look at the list of the top 10 employers in America today, you see that by a HUGE margin, #1 is WalMart. Nobody I know expects to make a good "middle class career" out of a WalMart job. And who is #2 after WalMart? Oh, it's Yum Foods, Inc. -- owners of chains like Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Same problem. We need to encourage small business growth, especially for people in rural America where the only employment nearby is the local gas station or WalMart, or maybe a local hardware store. (And it's absolutely possible. Remember Gateway computers? They started in rural Iowa, hence the Holstein cow patterned shipping boxes for all of their PCs.)
> Do you think the Supreme Court and Congress would just take a holiday and let him play out his Fascist dictator fantasies?
You're just frightened because they've let Obama do just that - but that's ok because you support and take part in his socialist fantasies.
... and remain a viable place for people to voice their ideas.
If Twitter becomes a progressive hug box then that's all it will be... and its value as a company will be very low.
This is a mistake a lot of social media outlets are making recently. They think "oh we want to get rid of all the things that look icky to some people"... the problem is that "the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it." which means if twitter censors people... they will appear to large portions of the user base as "damaged"... and they will be bypassed.
Twitter cannot ban something like trump because he's clearly very popular with a large number of people.
What is more, Twitter is letting ISIS say what they want... how crazy do you have to be to think Trump should be censored but ISIS shouldn't?
Nutty people.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yes, private companies are free to ignore people's civil rights, the same way a private business is perfectly free to deny service to blacks and gays, or a landlord is free to say "Mexicans need not apply" in his rental ads.
You're being sarcastic, but I get you. No, businesses are not free to ignore people's civil rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That Act has survived numerous constitutional challenges in the Supreme Court and elsewhere.
If Twitter violates someone's civil rights by expelling them (e.g., by discriminating in some way that is illegal as defined in the Act) then yes, they're on the hook. But they're in no way obliged to provide a platform to anyone for the expression of their views.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Trump and Clinton are best buds IRL. He's just running interference for her, ensuring that the GOP has no credible alternative until it's too late. The fix is in.
Twitter wisely doesn't interfere with (political) speech that is basically bombastic, certainly crude, definitely dumb, mostly misleading, fully fearmongering, and which might reasonably be termed racist. And it shouldn't. This speech is not illegal and it's far too lucrative for Twitter to have it. The whole country is talking about it and many of them are using Twitter to respond. Great! Free publicity! Increase in user volume! Societal relevance!
I (and many others) consider what mr. Trump says poisonous rubbish, but we support his right to speak freely. There is quite enough censorship going on already.
Freedom of speech often isn't nice, fuddy-duddy, or conducive to "cosmic harmony". And neither is it meant to be. It is however the cornerstone of the battle of words that's known as public debate. Freedom of speech is meaningless when there is harmony. Its protection is most needed when your opponents are screaming with rage, foaming at the mouth, and are brandishing sticks, knives, and guns in response to spoken and written words.
Of course freedom of speech can be abused, and Words aren't harmless. Communism came to power because of Words. National-socialism was voted into power ... because of Words. Words that squarely tapped into an undercurrent of rage and inflamed people.
However, we have certain rules about where to draw the line. Not mob-rule. Rules like the rule against Libel for instance. Incitement to riot. Calling for violence against US citizens. And, hehehe, that most serious of crimes: copyright infringement. Of course that leaves sneaky people a tremendous amount of freedom and plenty of opportunity to do damage.
Like trumpeting that they are _not_ calling someone a Bimbo ... because that would not be "politically correct" (ok, no other sources of reticence seem to apply, like common decency for example, but this one is a show-stopper apparently). By ranting that someone had blood coming out of her "wherever" ... when when one is inconveniently confronted with one's own words (As in a childisch "nyer nyer ... never said anything that tripped a legal rule but sure got the message across didn't I ?"). By ranting about seeing certain ethnic groups partying and revelling in the destruction of the Twin Towers (something which amazingly no-one else saw). Like advocating deliberate indiscriminate bombing of large numbers of civilians to show (Soviet style) toughness (and arguably giving the targets sufficient reason to retaliate with terrorist attacks here in return). Like proposing 40% tariffs on imports (probably wrecking the US economy, that of most of the world, triggering large-scale instabilities, and perhaps even a big war). And serving ISIS with the very thing it so desperately wants: a chance to trigger a global conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. No worries. All covered by Freedom of Speech.
Even so, whether any lines are crossed should be determined in a court of law. Not by mob-rule. Of course no system is perfect, but we have traditionally opted for a very heavy burden of proof in any legal proceedings against freedom of speech. And rightly so I feel.
Donald trump isn't even that bad, and the media puts him way out of context and frame. There is nothing wrong with securing the boarder, there is nothing wrong with screening "refugees" for desirability.
Careful what censorship you wish for.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
The thing is that Trump isn't really a Republican. He's an artifact of the open door Republicans have. In any other election he'd be the latest Ross Perot, an independent candidate. But because the GOP has spent the last eight years enthralled to a pack of wingnuts, the biggest wingnut of them all now has a chance to win the nomination.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I just looked at his twitter postings. They're hardly hateful at all, though sometimes mocking.
Who posted this article, another SJW?
Obviously 'hate speech' is being used politically.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Instead of shutting down accounts, twitter should enable people to subscirbe to blocklist maintainers - "twitter editors." Just like AdBlock has a bunch of block lists you can subscribe to, Twitter should let people subscribe to whitelists and blacklists.
New accounts default to a blacklist equal to what twitter already disables. Let there be a kid-friendly white-lists so your kid will only see tweets from vetted kid-friendly twitter feeds. For super religious people, you can sign up to a blasphemy blacklist, etc. But if you want the full asshole experience you can unsubscribe from all lists and get the raw untreated sewage.
People could even make money charging for access to their white/black list services.
yeah a 'protect me from the nasty words!' list!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Do you think the Supreme Court and Congress would just take a holiday and let him play out his Fascist dictator fantasies?
I think we've Godwined this far enough. I think the US Supreme Court would do the same thing they did for Obama when he played out his Fascist dictator fantasies.
The Oval Office would resemble Nixon on steroids, as it would be the first time in over forty years that a POTUS had almost no friends on the Hill. About the only place there would be activity would be the Federal Courts and SCOTUS as Congress and everyone else that Trump screws takes his Administration to court, likely ending in impeachment for any of a dozen flagrant, even proud high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is a huge thing that is missed. If Trump gets elected, it'll probably be the best opportunity this century to curb the power of the US Presidency.
I thought about my comment, and I think there's a better way to phoase it. the repubs in congress will gleefully take the opportunity to apss all sorts of crazy laws. obamacare? gone. planned parenthood? gone.you name it, it's gone. trump will definitely sign these.
The Tea Party doesn't like him now. The best way to gauge his popularity is by quizzing people on how authoritarian they are. Amusingly enough, I imagine a similar metric is being reflected in the Dem primaries.
Sure, but they should also have to deal with the consequences of that. They shouldn't be able to sue their critics.
So, the same person who called Trump a fascist last week is trying to get a mob together to censor him? Yeah.
http://imgur.com/VmRo4qt
church of the better resurrection... https://betterresurrectionchurch.wordpress.com/
...then it should be treated the same as in any other case.
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
Facebook can look forward to being the first Silicon Valley company to have to start paying taxes.
The readers create far more entertaining content than the editors ever will.
as well as the authors of the stories posted.
The first amendment does not require private entities to allow free speech. Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't doing the public a disservice when they don't. Twitter has effectively censored certain views in the past under the guise of 'anti bullying.'
exactly. That's what I've thought from the start of his campaign.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Can't stump the Trump!
Eurabia
*giggles*
lucm, indeed.
As a Congressman, my job is to get re-elected.
and this is exactly the WRONG reason to be a congressman. I think if that is ones attitude (not that i disagree with you on how things actually are) they should be disqualified from office
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I hate Donal Trump but I also have a brain. Saying "some Mexicans crossing the border illegally are felons and rapists" is not racist, it's true and an actual political problem. What Democrats (and idiots) HEAR is "all Mexicans are rapists and felons." It's not like he's tweeting "white power" or something blatantly racist.
prove it.
you people keep saying so, but not one of you has proven why
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Trump using twitter has probably brought in *a lot* of people that weren't on twitter before.
I'm no Trump supporter, but you're a political idiot if you think what Trump has posted would shut down any other twitter user immediately.
Search for Sarah Palin and look for the insults that have been on there for years.
Same with Cheney.
Same with George W Bush.
Same with any conservative minority.
Same with any conservative woman.
Stop bitching that twitter hasn't shut down the political speech of someone you don't like. Because you know why? They may come after you next.
This is a bizarre submission. Trump, while dominating the press and being divisive, probably doesn't even crack the top 20% of the "hate" spewed on Twitter. If Twitter isn't going to block known terrorist sympathizers they probably won't block Trump.
rm -rf /.
"Isn't really a Republican" is not really a meaningful things. The party has changed a lot from 20 years ago, and then it was very different from what it was 20 years before, and before. The new change is happening right before our eyes. It's the Republican voters who are supporting Trump and are going to give him the nomination in a landslide. So, effectively, the Republican party, as it exists today, is the party of Trump. That everyone around it, and many in it, assumed that it's something else, has been a delusion for quite a while now.
Free speech means that you are free to say whatever you want. But it does not place any entity, private or public, under any obligation to offer you a platform.
That depends where you are. In Europe if you offer a public service to people then generally you are not allowed to refuse service for a variety of reasons one of which is usually the political views you hold. Unfortunately though most European countries ban certain times of speech outright.
What we need is a hybrid system: the American rules on what we are allowed to say and the European rules to protect our ability to say where others can hear it if they choose to.
No, they really hate unequal treatment.
Twitter is a private platform that is not obligated by law to not censor, and so can censor, and does censor. They do, in fact, have a lengthy document that describes what exactly they censor. And they do apply that document to other users rather meticulously - but for some reason, not to Trump. They're not legally obligated to treat everyone the same, either, but it's rather hypocritical of them to post rules regarding prohibited content, enforce them and defend them, and then not apply them in one particular instance.
the problem I see is that Clinton moved the Dems farther to the right so he could land the presidency. The Republicans were forced to move further right to retain their identity (why vote for a Republican if the Dems are the same?). This is why we see folks like tea partiers getting elected to house seats and it's why we might see Trump as a candidate.
You're right about the problems with not enough middle class jobs, but you'll need a solution to that problem. It's good 'ole tarrifs and protection for local workers. Gateway moved away because Mexicans let their workers be abused and we didn't. We have to punish that behavior mercilessly. We'll never win that race to the bottom.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Because they have terms of service that explicitly prohibit the kinds of things that he has been posting, and they have censored other users for posting such things.
I don't care how they do it - I would actually prefer no filtering at all, actually - but the rules should be the same for everyone.
and his shit is a clear TOS violation
Needs to be true first. Have you ever tried to reason before? Provide evidence such as quotes to show that Trump is doing something wrong first. Then complain.
If twitter were to disable his account, it would clearly have the opposite effect.
It would be giving legitimacy to some of his crazy.
guy who is going out of his way to show his complete contempt for everything from the Bill of Rights to basic human decency
You are assuming me means and/or believes any of it. He's a carnival barker/car salesman/reality tv show host. I think it's still entirely within the realm of possibilities that at some point he basically just says 'April Fool' after the GOP is fully and completely screwed.
Jon Stewart said it best before he left TDS... "This one's got it's own money!" Trump simply does not care about a damned thing. The rabid GOP base loves it because it's anti 'Establishment' which is everything until the anti is the establishment...as some tea-party people are finding out that now they are the 'establishment' because they aren't rabid enough anymore.
Trump is riding an ego wave. Would he ride that into office? certainly possible, but doubtful. People like him don't like it when they can't control the game and he can't control the actual game of politics...primary silly season sure, but not actually having to be accountable for your actions and words.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Saccharine political correctness and narcissistic righteousness turned nowadays into "stream of hate and other abuses".
Does anyone really trust this guy to have his thumb on the nuclear option. Let alone his twitter account.
Then look at "her" profile picture because some things are not as they seem.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What do you get if you cut a Nazi's balls off?
An Occupy protester.
That's why they blitzed all the way to the Atlantic. They were welcomed as liberators. But, eventually the evil foreign capitalists used their influence to mobilize the entire world and re-enslave the European continent.
Though to be fair, Stalin wasn't a capitalist, just an ally.
Then they saw to it that anyone who questioned their propaganda and told the real story was arrested. Questioning or disputing the "official" story remains a crime to this day.
Hell, it's a part of this culture. Oh, you discussed the Nazis, GODWIN! Conversation over!
Comparing Trump to Hitler is ridiculous. If Trump placed his businesses under the democratic control of his workers, that would be more like Hitler.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Because he is the leading contender for a Presidential nomination from a major party? That would be my guess.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The moral authority for the rules is that Twitter owns the services it provides and has the right to decide what those services will and won't include.
Because they do not need to disrespect freedom of speech, just because somebody is calling somebody else out
Trump, and people arguing with trump, brings traffic to their site. This isn't rocket science.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I tweet a lot of nastiness on Twitter from Sweden and my account haven't been affected at all, and I want it that way.
Fuck legitimization and censorship, they are all anti-democratic and against me and my opinion and views.
If you don't agree then express that don't cut me off.
I don't know what the Terms of Service is for twitter but it seem very tolerant and that's why I used that instead of communist Facebook let alone any Swedish main-stream media (some trash was applauding how a bunch of Swedish news papers or whatever had removed the comment section altogether since supposedly now it get rid of a lot of racism. Guess what? The racism are still there, we still don't want the invaders and our traitor government, the correct way of dealing with that will is to not let them in not cut us off. Cutting away the capability to express and raise the opinion of course have some effect (see North Korea) but it also leave little room except illegal one to act so don't come complain about anti-democratic methods and fear and terrorism and what not if you don't allow people to have a voice and participate.)
As for ISIS they can likely just spread their opinion anyway, meet it with an argument and a different stance instead, offer a better alternative rather than just trying to censor it.
Trump gonna knock you out! Momma say knock you out!
Why Does Twitter Refuse To Shut Down Donald Trump?
I hate Trump, but I would never accept as appropriate for the Internet and the Media (and twitter is a de-facto part of the Media) to shut him down. Who the fuck could possibly ask for that?
Freedom of speech works both ways, and to uphold it demands from us to listen to that which is objectionable (and to deal with it with counter-arguments, not censorship.)
I understand that, in principle, Freedom of Speech does not forbid private media to censor free thought, unlike public media and government. But it is disenginuous to demand Twitter to censor Trump? Why? Because he is a misogynistic man-child who spouts vile racial shit to arouse those on the edge of nationalistic fervor?
Fuck that. Fuck your sensitivities. You don't censor that shit. You confront it heads on in the rhetoric arena. Let's face it, between 1/4 and 1/3 of the population believe the shit he says (and loves him because of the shit he says). Trumps speaks to them.
Do you think censorship is going to make that go away? No. In fact, it will make him a martyr to those idiots who go happy-bug-eye for him. You gotta let that shit come in the open. Let that stupidity be in the open for the world to see. Then attack it with counter-arguments, and with behavior as counter-examples.
To pussy up behind a wall of censorship that prevents to see the ugly realities of 'Murika, how the hell does that help?
Did a libtard SJW submit this story? They really hate free speech.
Free speech becomes hate speech. Speaking your mind becomes frowned on.
And this is bad because...? Welcome to life dude. Yes, speaking your mind becomes frowned on. Does that stops you from speaking your mind as a matter of principle? You need to really live in a state of repression to understand how precious it is to speak your mind, even if everyone else frowns on you.
I honestly wish people would realize this fact. Bill Clinton WAS Impeached- he was just not convicted of the accusations in the Articles of Impeachment.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
People keep fallaciously saying this... If it makes you feel better, by all means keep repeating it to yourself. You don't
1) Understand HOW a President gets elected (Seriously- if you mention "popular vote" in this context, you DO NOT KNOW.)
2) Understand that it's not what YOU wish, but what a lot of other people think that you clearly know nothing about.
While I didn't agree with the man's take on things, I thought Romney was going to take it because of anti-Dem fervor back then. Clearly I was wrong. Pontificating like you have here, you're likely to be that too. Just don't act shocked, pissed, etc. when it doesn't work out that way. I won't agree with you then and I won't have any sympathy either.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Or maybe Twitter is just getting a lesson on the meaning of the First Amendment.
E Proelio Veritas.
Did a libtard SJW submit this story? They really hate free speech.
Free speech becomes hate speech. Speaking your mind becomes frowned on.
And this is bad because...? Welcome to life dude. Yes, speaking your mind becomes frowned on. Does that stops you from speaking your mind as a matter of principle? You need to really live in a state of repression to understand how precious it is to speak your mind, even if everyone else frowns on you.
Yes, in the USA thats what 'free speech zones' are for!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
RIGHT! Like the Teagaggers will tolerate his All for me once he's in office.
Here we are, discussing "Donald Trump spews forth a trolling stream of hate", and on the other side we have this.
Maybe both sides could cease with this childishness. We'd all be better for it.
Just another day in Paradise
I find it bizarre how openly people talk about limiting free speech. The defining part of our government. The part of our government that attracts the world to want to move here. The US has become children. Now i'll wait for you to all tell me the EULA makes it so a company can curtail your first amendment rights. I love the digital age.
The equal-time rule was created by the FCC, not the FEC, and it applies to broadcast media. It's debatable whether Twitter falls into that category. All of its content is created by its users, not Twitter itself.
Listen, I wouldn't be happy if Twitter banned anyone for political reasons. But IMHO, Twitter would be within its rights if it did so. And Twitter is hardly a monopoly.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Zero Democrats voted for the Impeachment, or for conviction. This made it exactly what it seemed, a witch hunt. Total failure
Quite bizarre. I think there is a valid Twitter hypocrisy point here, but TFS didn't focus on that angle. Instead it's all about needing to shut down Trump to be fair. Seems pretty hypocritical of the slashdot community too, or at least submitter
I generally think the same thing, but only because of the means to the end. It should be an effect of their time in office, not the goal.
I want my elected officials to work towards re-election, but only by faithfully representing the electorate and working in their best interests and the interests of the public. If you represent the electorate well, they will reward you with re-election.
I do NOT want my elected officials to work towards re-election using deceptive and illegal tactics, lying to the electorate, or other nefarious means. Don't FOOL me into re-electing you.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Would that have gotten you kicked off Twitter?
That is great. A shitty law, repealed. Good. Planned parenthood wouldn't be gone, it just wouldn't be federally subsidized any more. Also good.
Actually, there were four article of impeachment. Five Democrats voted for three of them. Virgil Goode, Ralph Hall, Paul McHale, Charles Stenholm, and Gene Taylor all voted to impeach him for two counts of Perjury, and Obstruction of Justice. So shut your lying, ignorant, self-taught pie hole.
True, but a bunch of rabid Democrats calling for private industry to shut down the speech of political opponents, is certainly not in the spirit of free speech. It is also a perfect example of totalitarianism by the left, which of course is par for the course, as that's what left wing politics always devolves into.
Oh yeah. Because those are just prime examples of the right wing's rise to power.
US House UnAmerican Activities Committee.
Joseph McCarthy
Any fundamentalist rally
etc.
When people have power they tend to stifle criticism, even when it is clearly to their own advantage. Often this is called "kill the messenger".
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
They would probably make planned parenthood illegal, revoke the copyrights, and arrest the executives.
I think you attribute more power to the SJWs and their ilk than their woolly notions (I was going to say "ideas", but I don't think it rises to that level.) have earned. Granted their influence has been to greatly empower lazy cowardly "thinking", and their effects have been unequivocally negative, but I think it is easily possible to see them as more influential than they are.
Don't step on the baby.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean you silence someone jackass. That's immature. If your argument is valid and true, then make your point, and don't whine about the other person getting airtime.
Who is letting this politically biased crap on the front page of Slashdot, no wonder people are leaving this website.
https://aeon.co/opinions/is-it...
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
No, and I don't care. Because it's not relevant.
It doesn't matter if the life form has nuts, doesn't have nuts, used to have nuts or is saving up to get some nuts.
What matters is that the one in question is nuts.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I don't think anyone should be shutdown. FREE SPEECH. Obviously, the standard clauses of you can't yell "Fire!" in a movie theater, make death threats, etc.
"Give them enough rope to hang themselves if you think someone is such a monster..."
yeah, that worked out great for Germany in 1932
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
People should themselves decide whether to vote for the character. He can write anything on the fence.
Success is the sum of small efforts - repeated day in and day out.
Today seems to be "give mod points to fascists" day.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I thought I was on Slashdot... but apparently I'm on the ONION. Or Slashdot editors have just given up all pretense about being impartial news reporters.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
...I suspect he gets special treatment, not that Twitter supports/agrees/condones his position, but if Twitter were to block a viable presidential candidate it would incur the wrath of his millions of supporters and potentially open itself up a legal challenge.
Excuse me, must have missed the memo. What fascist dictator fantasies does Obama have? How many of them involve women in leather?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And I don't believe you.
It may be that the right wing is getting most of the censorship it wants, and so the requests of the left are more visible. Alternately, the right-wing war on science is not portrayed as censorship in the media you follow. I have rarely seen a wacko ideologue who wasn't for censorship, and the reasonable leftists tend to be reasonable.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Look, they said they weren't going to be changing things all that fast. This means that they have to keep some idiocy reach the front page for at least a short while.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Um. This shouldn't be here. This should be on huffpost.
It's far more than zero, and far more than voted for BO's stimulus, or the PPACA.
Everyone's worst enemy is themselves. I guess the same is true about countries. Hopefully smart people will take over again at some point.
Nah, the best opportunity would come around 2040. That's the estimate I give for when China takes over as the #1 superpower. The impetus behind giving the US Presidency so much power is that Americans are afraid of no longer being #1 superpower. That doesn't change regardless of who gets into office.
I see that as the worst time to curb the power of the US Presidency. Because enough US voters would be afraid of no longer being the #1 superpower. I think it could easily get to the point where advocacy for democracy reforms is seen as aiding China.
I'm saying the best time is after they increased their power, the US needs to be firmly slapped down and lose, as spectacularly as possible. Then the people will realize their folly of putting their faith in the state.
Sorry, doing so after a major loss is not the best time, especially if as a result the US gets something imposed by China.
We've past Godwin a few posts up already, so let's go back to the Nazis: they weren't curbed by reform from within. They needed a stern ass kicking.
We got a nice government, West Germany. But we also had a nasty government, East Germany. The problem with your assertion here is the assumption that defeat will result in a more democratic government. My view is that it will result in a government more compatible with the victor, as West Germany was with First World democracies and East Germany was with Second World Communist societies.
If China happens to favor a democratic government at the time, then fine, it works out. But they aren't that society now.
Since we're in Godwin territory already, let me add that while you may be correct - I certainly hope so - history suggests otherwise. The Germans might well have hoped the same thing in the late 1920s. With one important exception. Hitler did not have access to nuclear weapons.
Nonaggression works!
Another important exception is that Trump hasn't done anything worthy of comparison to Hitler. For example, "Art of the Deal" is no "Mein Kampf". When Trump isn't running for president, he's managing a huge real estate empire. When Hitler wasn't running for Chancellor of the Wiemar Republic, he was starting fights in bars. Without the politics, Trump still is a contributing member of society and has a stake in that society continuing to function. Hitler was, as many other utopian types, willing to burn everything down because he was a heavily marginalized part of society.
I'm not claiming that Trump will be good for the US, but please get a grip.
Even if we grant your point, it's kind of orthogonal to mine, which is that putting a miscreant in power, so as to build support for a reduction of the power of the office that the miscreant holds, is a dangerous plan.
Nonaggression works!
Even if we grant your point, it's kind of orthogonal to mine, which is that putting a miscreant in power, so as to build support for a reduction of the power of the office that the miscreant holds, is a dangerous plan.
Now, you're missing the biggest difference of all. Hitler was chosen so as to destroy the Wiemar Republic. Many of the democratic institutions and checks on power had been destroyed or undermined ever since the Treaty of Versailles (such as the German military immediately finding ways to circumvent the military constraints of the treaty). For example, Hitler wasn't involved in the dissolution of the Free State of Prussia (aside from his SA being involved in street fighting with the Communists that was used as a pretext for the maneuver).
The current US environment isn't even remotely close. Hence, my opinion on what would happen if Trump were to become president.
The original statement was about when the best opportunity is to curb US government power. Opportunity doesn't have to mean it will actually happen. Trump has the opportunity to become the next president. Doesn't mean he will.
You might have noticed way back when that I used the word "IF".
Note that even if China imposes something on the US, technically the US government's power would get curbed. Before, the US government doesn't have to answer to China. Afterwards, they would have to.
"Technically" is not good enough unless China's government also gets curbed in power. You're not thinking this through at all.
Congress would spend most of its time dispensing with his vetoes, defunding any department he tried to turn to whatever idiotic or evil plan (if you can call what he does "planning") he had in mind.
why woudl you think this? repubs own both halves of congress, and while I don't think they'll go in for his most radical stuff, they're not going to outwardly challenge or overrule him.
I used to think that Donald was an adult gutter child, but actually, as I began to watch the comic show, I began to notice a strategy aimed at putting his opponents off balance. In a way, he is also fighting the superpacs, which in every other democratic country, would be deemed illegal. And the feeding of money to candidates via very high paying speaking engagements. I just love bribery.
He is pointing out that being nice is not being able to make/take a decision and run with it. Instead of having deliberate immediate decisions, to wolly-gag, to fluster and to take action in a years time, to delay the enviable decision down the road is what the opponents are doing. And he uses his attacks very effectively to put his opponents off guard.
You do realize that the USA, in the event of a war, is no longer self sufficient or able to survive. Your manufacturing of electronic components, and finished products like cellphones, radar detectors, etc, is all being manufactured off-shore. Just let the supply line be blocked, and the USA will fall down on it's own greedy decisions.
Yes, bring back manufacturing. If it's too expensive to do because of the desire for 30% gross profits, then too bad. Bring profits down to reasonable levels. Bring the director salaries in line with responsibilities. Want a million dollar income? Own enough dividend type shares to give you the excess over $400,000 of salary. You don't deserve more money than that, if you only manage a team of seven to ten people.
And if the domestic items, manufactured by robots are too expensive, raise the minimum wage.
When the minimum wage is so low that even with two incomes, a family can't afford medical insurance, or higher education, then the greedy wealthy are the cause of the "Dumbing down of America". It took a decision by Reagan to orchestrate USA poverty. Rich get Richer and poor get poorer.
Donald is a proactive thinker, not a reactive one.
And by the way, I think that the team of Trump and Sanders would be fantastic for USA. Is there a reason to not have a Pres/Vice Pres Republican/Democrat or Democrat/ Republican in the white house? What happened to "Government of the people, for the people and by the people"?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
I used to think that Donald was an adult gutter child, but actually, as I began to watch the comic show, I began to notice a strategy aimed at putting his opponents off balance.
So basically you're saying that Trump is a Zui Quan (Drunken Fist) master.
No, there were NOT five Democratic Senators who voted for conviction. Nice trick, conflating ACCUSATION with conviction when the subject is conviction.
You said zero Democrats voted for the impeachment, did you not?
What power? Choosing whether to drink tea or coffee?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Sitting on your ass and collecting rent doesn't look particularly productive to me.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I did. My bad. ZERO voted for conviction, and 5 republicans voted against, leaving 45-55 for acquittal. Failed Impeachment
If you don't remove him, you failed.