141–150 of 1001 posts
Definition of Liberal used to be: "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise."
I am still a liberal. But I am not the current liberal.
If no tv network will carry his remarks live, and no social network will give him a posting account, then he has no way of communicating with the American people and it seems pretty difficult to make the case that he is able to carry out his duties. So I guess what I'm saying is: invoke the 25th amendment because he got kicked of Twitter.
Several presidents managed before Twitter, TV, or electricity.
4 years of fascism and inciting violence is all it took. This is far too little too late and Twitter is clearly complicit.
As Trump is the President of the United States, knowing what he says is in the public's interest - until the end which is reached nowadays. That's why this action happened now and not much earlier.
My question here though is: does blocking Trump from Twitter really equate to blocking the public from hearing what he's saying? As someone who doesn't use and never really 'got' Twitter it's really hard for me to take Twitter that seriously. Aren't there myriad other and better ways for the president to reach more people? (Note that only a small-ish minority of U.S. adults even use Twitter at all)
I really don't when a private company decides who gets air time and who doesn't. Oh well it's the world we live in.
If he has something important to say as the President of the United States, he can make an official statement as a head of state.
Nothing to be sorry about him losing a social media account.
Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.
It’s a correct (late) call, but using these quotes will read to those who disagree as “we have nothing we just want to shut him down” which is unfortunate.
74 million voters. This is not going to play out well. There's really no coming back from this moment, the technocratic elite have changed American democracy forever. Edit: I mean this in the way Snowden tweeted yesterday, it will be interesting how this plays out for better or worse, but it is a monumental policy shift that will be a date marked in history books.
Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.
Should it be weak, on just what you are looking at? I mean, yeah. You don't have to look hard to find that this is more than "merely" plausible. Odds are ridiculously high that the tweets were more fanning of flames.
Me thinks this will have huge implications for big tech. A Pandora’s box was just opened.