Live data from Hacker News

Twitter suspends Trump's campaign account TeamTrump for violating its rules

reuters.com

271–280 of 292 posts

Re: Twitter suspends Trump's campaign account TeamTrump for violating its rules

#271
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some took selfies. Some proclaimed themselves in control of Congress. Some entered the Senate chamber with weapons and handcuffs. The authors said a coup has 3 criteria. > 3) Do the plotters use illegal and unconstitutional methods to seize executive power? The authors said yes. > 2) Is the target of the insurrection the chief executive of the government? The authors said yes. > 1) Are the perpetrators agents of the…

> Do the plotters use illegal and unconstitutional methods to seize executive power? I have no clue why the author checks this. The rioters entered a building (which is by the way the seat of the legislative power) and that's it. Even if they had killed everyone inside, that wouldn't have put them an inch closer to seizing the power, as the power is simply not there. Power is alliances and a chain of command, not bei…

> I have no clue why the author checks this. The rioters entered a building (which is by the way the seat of the legislative power) and that's it. Even if they had killed everyone inside, that wouldn't have put them an inch closer to seizing the power.

The fairly overt goal, articulated in only slightly elliptical language by the President in inciting the mob, was to cause, by intimidation, members of Congress to alter their behavior re: the count of electoral votes so that Trump would be declared the victor and thus retain executive power.

Re: Twitter suspends Trump's campaign account TeamTrump for violating its rules

#272
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do the plotters use illegal and unconstitutional methods to seize executive power? I have no clue why the author checks this. The rioters entered a building (which is by the way the seat of the legislative power) and that's it. Even if they had killed everyone inside, that wouldn't have put them an inch closer to seizing the power, as the power is simply not there. Power is alliances and a chain of command, not bei…

> I have no clue why the author checks this. The rioters entered a building (which is by the way the seat of the legislative power) and that's it. Even if they had killed everyone inside, that wouldn't have put them an inch closer to seizing the power. The fairly overt goal, articulated in only slightly elliptical language by the President in inciting the mob, was to cause, by intimidation, members of Congress to alt…

Oh well, for that he would have needed a mob of at least several millions. If that's what he really hoped for, he was off by at least four orders of magnitude.

Re: Twitter suspends Trump's campaign account TeamTrump for violating its rules

#273
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no clue why the author checks this. The rioters entered a building (which is by the way the seat of the legislative power) and that's it. Even if they had killed everyone inside, that wouldn't have put them an inch closer to seizing the power. The fairly overt goal, articulated in only slightly elliptical language by the President in inciting the mob, was to cause, by intimidation, members of Congress to alt…

Oh well, for that he would have needed a mob of at least several millions. If that's what he really hoped for, he was off by at least four orders of magnitude.

A stupid coup attempt is still a coup attempt.

Re: Twitter suspends Trump's campaign account TeamTrump for violating its rules

#274
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, hear me out... maybe, just maybe, it's not a conspiracy, and you're the crazy one for not understanding basic common sense. Maybe.

Please stop posting flamewar comments to HN and taking threads further into hell. You've been doing it a lot lately, and it's exactly the opposite of what this site is supposed to be for. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of which politics they approve of or oppose. I'm not going to ban you because you've also been posting some good comments. But if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelin…

> taking threads further into hell

Okay, you win, that's a good point. Tbh "don't take conversations further into hell" sounds like an excellent additional guideline, even if it can be read between the lines.

Re: Twitter suspends Trump's campaign account TeamTrump for violating its rules

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, coercion of the POTUS is the criminal offense. > where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something

Out of curiosity, what do you think makes it illegal: the coercive aspect, or that it's aimed at POTUS?

Both.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...

Re: Twitter suspends Trump's campaign account TeamTrump for violating its rules

#276
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying it's "not a coincidence"? Because of course it's not. The bigger companies (twitter, facebook) minimized risk of fallout by waiting until DT's time in power was up and there was a good opportunity to do what they wanted (Jan 6th events), and the other companies are just following in their footsteps while it makes good PR. It's kinda like when BLM was hot in the news and companies decided to paint the…

How is that pathetic?

By waiting for the time when it was a "good PR move" to show support for BLM, they are signaling that they don't actually support BLM (if they did, they would've shown their support before), they actually just support having a good public image.

Basically, they are just full of shit and are willing to hop on whatever bandwagon makes them look the best.

Re: Twitter suspends Trump's campaign account TeamTrump for violating its rules

#277
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which means that if we choose to ignore the Trump aspect of the corona virus and compare the US to other countries you get the following: - no free healthcare means you initially had to pay to get tested - underdeveloped healthcare system (initial wave saw NYC overwhelmed) - lack of labor laws means that you have few rights: no sick days and can easily be fired with no grace period - polarized political environment m…

> no free healthcare means you initially had to pay to get tested Varied from state to state, no? > underdeveloped healthcare system (initial wave saw NYC overwhelmed) New York City was not overwhelmed in the first wave, and had both Javits and the Mercy as unused spare capacity. > lack of labor laws means that you have few rights: no sick days and can easily be fired with no grace period Varied from employer to empl…

> New York City was not overwhelmed in the first wave, and had both Javits and the Mercy as unused spare capacity.

This is not in line with the facts as I understand them. Multiple health care workers I know told me in March-April that their ability to treat Covid patients were capped by constrained resources (not enough ventilators, not enough staff, not enough beds) during the first wave. Here [1] is an article that supports these anecdotes.

Also, the Navy hospital ships refused to accept patient transfers, even as the hospitals were completely full [2]. "On top of its strict rules preventing people infected with the virus from coming on board, the Navy is also refusing to treat a host of other conditions. " and "Mr. Dowling said he has had to tear his hospitals apart, retrofitting any unused space, including lobbies and conference rooms, into hospital wards.".

So no, you are incorrect. NY hospitals were absolutely overrun during the first wave. Please do not perpetuate a narrative that isn't supported by facts.

1) https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/us/brooklyn-hospital-coronavi...

2) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/nyregion/ny-coronavirus-u...

Re: Twitter suspends Trump's campaign account TeamTrump for violating its rules

#278
post #172

Remember when people said "it's only extremists like Alex Jones" and "white nationalists", yeah well now Twitter has banned the president of the United States. I'm not a supporter of Trump, but I'm yet to hear him explicitly incite violence. I know he encouraged the protest at the Capitol but I've yet to see evidence that he was hoping for it to turn violent? And if he did want that why did he speak out against it? H…

I think you are naive in several of your statements, or at least your understanding of these situations has been significantly filtered. Let me break down a couple of your statements:

> I've yet to see evidence that he was hoping for it to turn violent? And if he did want that why did he speak out against it?

He's not going to directly tell people to go commit violence. He's going to (and did) whip up a crowd using hateful language, demonize the people who he doesn't like, and make it clear that the crowd needed to "take action". He used the common formulae of a persuasive speech, but left the call to action portion vague, so he couldn't be held directly responsible; politicians do this all of the time.

> does this mean we can expect Biden to be removed from Twitter if tweets anything in support of BLM?

No. The are huge differences between the people who attacked the Capitol and BLM protesters.

1) Volume: BLM actions have been widespread and ongoing. Whatever these crazy Trumpers/white supremacists/insurectionists call themselves, they've had several orders of magnitude less actions than BLM.

2) Violence: even though there have been so few Trumper protests, they've almost always had violence and in several cases, murder. There has been violence during BLM protests before, but it is so much more rare compared to the number of protests that they've had. Also, in general, BLM violence is almost always directed at property, not people, and is usually as a response, unlike what we saw at the Capitol. Has ANY police officer been killed by BLM protesters? After literally thousands of protests? I haven't heard of it happening.

3) Purpose: BLM protests are generally about ending racism, social justice, and systemic equality. These Trumpets were taking action because they wanted to overturn the results of a democratic election. With that goal, they were basically trying to end our nation as a Democratic Republic.

4) Cause: BLM started, and has persisted, because people of color continue to be disproportionately killed by police (disproportionate in the reason why they were killed, not just in terms of numbers). It's funny how blatantly justified BLM's reason for existing became while watching how the Capitol Police handled the insurectionists. The Trumpets cause is that they didn't get what they want, because we live in a democracy.

So no, Biden showing support for BLM will not get him banned from Twitter, because BLM is activism in response to murderous racism, and because he has the moral compass not to try to cause the downfall of our democracy.

Re: Twitter suspends Trump's campaign account TeamTrump for violating its rules

#279
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop posting flamewar comments to HN and taking threads further into hell. You've been doing it a lot lately, and it's exactly the opposite of what this site is supposed to be for. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of which politics they approve of or oppose. I'm not going to ban you because you've also been posting some good comments. But if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelin…

> taking threads further into hell Okay, you win, that's a good point. Tbh "don't take conversations further into hell" sounds like an excellent additional guideline, even if it can be read between the lines.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm using the hell metaphor increasingly—not for the happiest of reasons of course. What people need to remember is that hell has circles, and as bad as the current situation is, the inner circles are considerably worse.

Re: Twitter suspends Trump's campaign account TeamTrump for violating its rules

#280
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no free healthcare means you initially had to pay to get tested Varied from state to state, no? > underdeveloped healthcare system (initial wave saw NYC overwhelmed) New York City was not overwhelmed in the first wave, and had both Javits and the Mercy as unused spare capacity. > lack of labor laws means that you have few rights: no sick days and can easily be fired with no grace period Varied from employer to empl…

> New York City was not overwhelmed in the first wave, and had both Javits and the Mercy as unused spare capacity. This is not in line with the facts as I understand them. Multiple health care workers I know told me in March-April that their ability to treat Covid patients were capped by constrained resources (not enough ventilators, not enough staff, not enough beds) during the first wave. Here [1] is an article tha…

I don't think [1] suppports that. That's a report from a single hospital.

> [...] the ICU is at capacity, patient beds line the hallways of the emergency department, and the morgue is overflowing. [...] has a capacity of about 300 people at any given time

They then talk about converting elective space and hallways into bed space. Which was pretty normal everywhere.

And critically, NYC, as with all major metros, operates as a system of hospitals. So the data to support your assertion would be total NYC bed & ICU bed capacity & utilization.

"Overwhelmed" means unable to provide care. Not busy. Not lacking in specific equipment. Not being diverted to another hospital. It means ambulances showing up with patients and being told "No, we can provide no treatment."

The situation on the Comfort in NYC (swapped my coasts, oops!) was... complicated. The Navy was essentially commanded to "Send a big ship to NYC so it can be seen." Everyone I've talked to in Navy medicine thought it was idiotic, for reasons too numerous to list.

However, given the order from on high, the least &@$_ed way of fulfilling it was to use the Comfort to offload non-Covid patients from local hospitals, thereby freeing capacity, thereby creating more Covid bed space. (Just to be clear, swamping an enclosed ship with large numbers of patients infected with a highly communicable virus is a terrible idea. Land-based facilities, if existent, are infinitely superior for isolation in this scenario)

Only... nobody had thought about how that transfer was supposed to work. Or the legal ramifications of transferring patients from hospitals to US military care. Or any of the other minutiae.

Consequently, the Comfort essentially sat there waiting for hospitals to transfer patients and... they didn't.

Essentially the same story with Javits (staffed by military medical). What Javits did get tended to be folks the hospitals thought would be unable to pay, and/or Medicaid (ie capped reimbursement rates).

The general feeling on the military medical side is that hospitals didn't want to lose the revenue patients represented, and so were retaining as many as possible, even as their doctors, nurses, and staff (rightly so) told the media they'd been working non-stop for weeks.

Source: doctors in NYC, people who served at Javits and had colleagues on the Comfort

Please see guidelines for HN commenting. Specifically, "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN